





P’ r +. & 0 -* 

O'* — ® cO «> * O 

*u * * 0 A ^ C ^> » * v a' 

\ \/ ^ ^ 

■ - Vv^ ' ' ' 


* ^ 








;• ♦* ^ •. 




V “„ 

,\- -C* ''7T-' ,0 r ^ ' 

r .*J^* \ c o* t . .>;•., V 

; ^ 0 « -ism^- *of •■ 

* ...,.y v*v yw ^ 

»% /-‘M'.\ /.*>\ ,* v V 

• v> * V^w\\v • - <^|jL Jij* • 'p * 

^ , % '“••• .<v <u ‘^?r> .&*■ \ > 

0~ « 4 ' * « *0 «A* * ® “ • ♦ <S> >v L<* *£*_ 

*■ •* o rr t 


s*. 





“ip * 0 V i 

/ «>* o o * I 

a v -& ^ •' ■* * .■<y a , *.. o ° »cr 

^ *? v • **•- *> V s • •**'«, O 0 ^ .»•« 

• V rjti&: V :£& W ••' 





I . C 0 * • ♦ "<£. 

* O W ^ 

; "b v* 

© jOTj - . 

• a ^cs/nfjF * kj- 

..." .. 0 ° ^ ‘ 77 .." 





5°x 


• ^ V . 

4 w t^. o 
^ ^ • 


aO^ '''l- v % ' . 

/ ''ssM/hr ** *+ *' 
*<»* "m®". %<? 

; ^ 


# ♦ • 




s vp^ 

* -A7 0 

<0 V "o -r.T* ’ a ' ' <- %7«i^ v f *f ^ •„ 

r »• A!-*, o a.^ o 0 * • * <s> o v .‘•'-* *^o 

*. j?n//y/p * a_^ » ^s\\l)'V t. ^ v? 

JS-rMv ^. A 0 < *.M^* t? 

© \0 V\ - • 4 O, • 

^7^0* Q 0 «> o _ 

^ °w * • r» ° *o* 

^ 4 ^ ^ tVRfiV* ^ 












<* ^T7i* ,0 


• ^ ^ ; 

* 4 ? ^ 

% V & ' 



W 


* v ^ • 


^ • A 




AX* 


> *"’• y % *•.•” *° v *-'• v 

> V * * '* CV .<y **•©, ^ . * * • / 


% & ' 

VV • 



.* • . 

0 * cP + V 

• - • A 0 <*> •• ' <^> 

** ** * ■ Kv ^ /h -\ : 

j- * A v 'J*. • iwfflflrri * sh v Cck „ 

« v v* v/* 



o. '©.** **TTi # <0 V o, •'©.»’* 

c«V* o^ *•""* V 

x /Y>7~> •» o ,i p • _* *r* f, v * o 





















































DEITY 


ANALYZED. 


IN 


SIX LECTURES. 


A' 


\ 






BT 






JOHN R. KELSO.A.M. 


// 


O^ 


1 ] > 
/ 0 


OF C0/V6d>n 

^COPVRI G/i^ 

'may 16 \m ‘ 


'>y No./V.«%.. 

°/ r WASH!N&\ 


D. M. BENNETT, 

LIBERAL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING HOUSE, 

OFFICE OF THE TRUTH SEEKER, 

NEW YORK. 




















' • ■ •• jr 










/ 

CONTENTS. 


Lecture. Page. 

I.—The Creator,.7 

' II. —The Creator (Continued), 64 

IIL —The Creator (Concluded), 92 

IY.—The Supreme Ruler, - * - 136 

Y. —The Messiah or Savior, • -' - 182 

YL —The Messiah or Savior (Concluded), 230 


/ 















PREFACE. 


Of all that humanity is capable of suffering there 
can be no agony more fearful, more unutterable in its 
intensity, than is that of total religious despair—a full 
belief that, without intending to do so, we have in 
some way incurred the inappeasable wrath of God, 
and that we are irrevocably doomed to writhe and 
scream in the undying flames of hell ages without 
end. Although fervent in his piety, the author, by 
the wicked influences of eternal-hell-fire-preaching 
priests, early became a victim of this unutterable 
despair. From his fifteenth to his twenty-fifth year, 
his young life was robbed of every ray of hope and of 
gladness, and nothing but a physical constitution of 
wonderful power kept him from sinking into an un¬ 
timely grave. Knowing, as he now does, that all 
those years of unspeakable woe were unnecessarily 
inflicted upon him by that system of false teachings 
called religion, and believing that this little book will 
be the means of saving many others from similar suf¬ 
ferings, he respectfully offers it to the public. 

The Author. 






































* % 

V 
















































* 

' 


.M 

t 






\, 


V 




DEITY ANALYZED. 


LECTURE FIRST. 

THE CREATOR 

Whether the universe has always existed and is 
self-sustaining, or whether, at some definite period in 
the past, it was brought from nonentity into existence, 
by a previously-existing power or person called God, 
who still sustains it, is the most stupendous question 
to which the thoughts of men have ever been directed. 
This question involves all possible causation, all possi¬ 
ble good, and all possible evil. 

If the universe be self-existent and self-sustaining, 
then to it alone, to the unchangeable laws of nature, 
we must look as the only source of all the evil that 
has ever afflicted, and of all the good that has ever 
benefited, mankind. On this hypothesis, we have no 
use, no room, for any such things as gods. In other 
words, we have no gods; and, having no gods, we 
have no need of prayers. We need not, therefore, be 
at the trouble and expense of keeping up our priests, 
our churches, our hells, our devils, our purgatories, 
etc. In order to attain the highest possible degree of 
perfection and of happiness, we have only to place 
ourselves in harmony with all the laws of our being. 
14 on the other hand, the universe was brought 



8 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


from nothing into existence by a personality called 
God, outside of itself, and if it is sustained by that 
personality or God, then to him alone we must look 
as the source of all possible good and of all possible 
evil. On this hypothesis, we have no use, no room, 
for any such thing as science. In other words, we 
have no science. In matter, we have no fixed prop* 
erties; in nature, no unchangeable laws. We have 
nothing upon which science could be founded. All 
things depend upon the caprice of a God who is him* 
self governed by no laws at all. 

On this hypothesis, which is generally accepted by 
all but the most intelligent of the world, a liquid may, 
at one moment, be water; at the next, blood, or wine. 
At one moment, an object may be a lump of clay; at 
the next, an ape, an ass, or a man. At one moment, 
a portion of matter may be dust; at the next, it may 
be lice. At one moment, an object may be a rod; at 
the next, a serpent; and, at still the next, a rod again, 
inside of which may be several serpents, which had 
been rods, and which it had very ungraciously swal¬ 
lowed while it was their fellow-serpent. At one mo¬ 
ment, a serpent may be able to strut about on legs, 
like a first-class dandy; and at the next, to his intense 
disgust and humiliation, he maybe compelled to crawl 
upon his belly. At one moment, like a true epicure, 
he may eat none but the choicest kinds of food ; at the 
next, by a strange perversion of taste, he may eat 
nothing but dust. In order that it may nourish him, 
this dust, before being eaten, must, of course, be 
changed into lice, or something else of a digestible and 
nutritious nature. At one moment, this serpent may 






THE CREATOR, 


9 


instinctively throw himself into a coil, thrust out his 
tongue, rattle his tail, ami hiss forth his wrath and his 
venom; at the next, he may be quietly taking a walk 
with the most lovely lady of the land, teaching her the 
uses of certain fine fruits, and, like a first-class theo¬ 
logian, instructing her in regard to the nature of God’s 
promises. On one occasion, a woman may have to be 
born; on another, just as good a woman may be man 
ufactured, in a few moments, out of bones—whale¬ 
bones, of course. In order to bear children, one wo¬ 
man may have to know a man ; another may bear 
children just as well without a man. At one time 
the clouds may pour down water; at another they 
may pour down fire, bread, brimstone, birds, or great 
stones. At one time, a man may be heavier than air; 
at another, he may be lighter, and may soar aloft in it 
like a balloon. At one moment, a man’s strength may 
lie in his muscles ; at the next, in his hair. At one 
time, a spring of water may flow from the ground; at 
another, from a loose stone, or the jaw-bone of an ass 
At one time, birds may have to be hatched from eggs; 
at another, they may be brought forth by the waters; 
and, at still another, they may be manufactured, like 
bricks, directly out of the ground. At one moment 
a man may be dead and putrid; at the next, alive and 
well. At one time, well-armed and well-disciplined 
soldiers may fight for their lives, or flee away for 
safety; at another, they may come quietly up, a thou¬ 
sand at a time, and let a single man, a dissipated vag¬ 
abond, beat out their brains for mere amusement with 
the jaw-bone of an ass. At one moment, a man may 
not be able to lift more than four or five times his 


10 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


own weight; at another, he may be able, with the ut¬ 
most ease, to lift a very large hotel with three thou¬ 
sand people in it Atone time, the mere extending of 
a rod in a man’s hand may produce no visible effect 
at all on any other object; at another, it may divide a 
sea, cause a small river to flow from a large brick, or 
a loose, rolling stone, produce millions of tons of lice, 
frogs, and flies, turn all the rivers and lakes of a large 
country into blood; produce murrain among all the 
cattle of a whole nation, cause storms of fire to fall 
from heaven, or destroy all the first-born of a great 
people. At one time, cattle may be capable of suffer¬ 
ing death only once; at another time, three times at 
least—once from murrain, once from hail, and once 
from drowning. At one time, the sun may rise 
promptly in the morning ; at another, he may not rise 
at all for three whole days. At one time, he may set 
in the evening; at another, in obedience to the 
command of the leader of a band of cutthroats 
who wish for more time in which to butcher women 
and children, he may remain stationary for a whole 
day at a time in the middle of the sky. At one time? 
he may move from east to west; at another, in order 
to please some old fortune-teller, he may move in the 
opposite direction. At one time the clouds may pour 
down scarcely rain enough to saturate the ground and 
fill the rivers; at another, they may pour down enough 
to raise the water in a solid body all around the 
world, as high as they themselves are, and then pour 
up enough to raise this immense body of water still 
three or four miles higher. At one time, we may hear 
an ass merely braying; at another, without the least 


THE CREATOR. 


11 


surprise, we may hear him exhorting in good English, 
like a Methodist preacher at a camp-meeting. At one 
time, fire may burn those who are cast into it; at 
another, though made seven times hotter than a com¬ 
mon furnace, it may not even scorch their clotles or 
singe their hair. At one time, a man may have hair 
on his head and nails on his fingers; at another, he 
may have feathers on his head and claws on his fin¬ 
gers. At one moment he may be a mighty king, sit¬ 
ting upon a throne; at the next, a gentle ox eating 
grass in a pasture with other cattle. At one time a man 
may be younger than his own father; at another, he 
and his father may be of the same age. And so on 
of all other things. There is nothing fixed, nothing 
upon which we can depend. Science becomes a bur¬ 
lesque, and the stories of Gulliver, Sindbad the Sailor, 
‘etc., become perfectly credible histories. We have no 
need to sow, to reap, to make clothes, to build houses, 
to marry, or to give in marriage. No wonder, then, 
that Jesus, who seems to have beeu a firm believer iri 
this supernatural system of things, and who is assumed 
to have been the son of an infinitely old bachelor and 
a beautiful young maid, commanded us to “take no 
thought, saying, What shall we eat? or what shall we 
drink, or, wherewithal shall we be clothed? ” AH we 
need to do is, by means of our prayers, our priests, 
our churches, our hells, our devils, etc., to sufficiently 
bamboozle the gods who control all things, and get 
them to do for us whatever we want done, 

On the one side of this great question, we find art 
rayed a small band of grand thinkers, called scientists, 
with their matter, their physical forces, etc., which 


12 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


they claim to be of necessity eternal, and to be in 
themselves sufficient to produce all the phenomena of 
nature. On the other side we find arrayed all the 
balance of mankind ; vast armies of priests, with their 
countless millions of unthinking followers. In addi¬ 
tion to these, we also find arrayed on this side a for¬ 
midable host of gods, demi-gods, devils, etc., Brahmas, 
Buddhas, Ormuzds, Ahrimanes, Chrishnas, Josses, Ab 
lahs, Juggernauts. Jehovahs, Jesuses, elephants, apes, 
snakes, crocodiles, Beelzebubs, etc. By their respective 
sects of followers, these various gods and other deific 
characters are assumed to have brought the uni¬ 
verse from absolute nothingness into existence, and to 
be the producers, directly or indirectly, of all the phe¬ 
nomena of nature. 

On the one side, we find the scientists all working 
together in harmony for the discovery of truth, and 
for the best interests of the human race. On the 
other side, we find the religionists all broken up into 
intensely hostile sects, fighting one another with the 
most implacable fury, not for the discovery of truth 
or the best interests of humanity, but for the suprem¬ 
acy of their respective gods and their respective re¬ 
ligions. Each of these sects swears that all the others 
are impostors, on the broad road to eternal damnation. 
In the names of their respective gods, they often 
butcher and burn one another by the tens of thou¬ 
sands at once. Jn the fearful fury of their religious 
zeal, they show no mercy at all, and among their vic¬ 
tims, they make no distinction on account of age, sex, 
or 9 ondition. No age of the tyorld—scarcely a year, 


THE CREATOR. 


13 


in fact—has been free from these terrible religious 
wars in some part of the earth. 

On the side of science, all is law, order, and friend¬ 
liness. On the side of religion, all is miracle, confu¬ 
sion, and hostility. On the one side knowledge is ev¬ 
erything and faith nothing. On the other, faith is ev¬ 
erything, and knowledge nothing. On the one side, 
the people claim to be men, and as such they stand 
Upright in any presence whatever. On the other, 
they claim to be worms, and as such they grovel in 
the dust before their gods. On the one side, guided 
by reason, science, and common sense, the people put 
their trust in their own exertions, and hence they sel¬ 
dom fail in any of their undertakings. On the other side, 
discarding reason, science, and common sense, the peo¬ 
ple put their trust in their gods, and hence they gener¬ 
ally fail in most of their undertakings. On the one side, 
we are taught that all diseases and other evils have 
none but natural causes, and can be cured or pre¬ 
verted by none but natural means. On the other 
side, we are taught that all these things have super¬ 
natural or god causes, and can be cured or prevented 
only by supernatural or god means. 

On the one side, we are taught that the earth is a 
globe revolving in space, and that there are millions 
of other worlds scattered throughout the infinite ex¬ 
panse. On the other side, we are taught that the earth 
alone, with its appendages, constitutes the entire uni¬ 
verse ; that it is flat and stationary; that what we call 
the sky is a firmament or solid structure, placed like 
a vast inverted bowl over the earth, that to keep them 
from falling, the sun, the moon, and the stars, all at an 



14 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


equal distance from the earth, are set or stuck like 
nails into the underside of the firmament; that on the 
upper side of this firmament, and, of course, above the 
sun, the moon, and the stars, are vast reservoirs of 
water, which, at the pleasure of the gods who live up 
there, can be made to pour down upon the earth, 
through windows or openings made for that purpose. 
We are taught that this description of the universe 
is given by inspiration of Jehovah, who is the God of 
the Jews, and one of the gods of the Christians, and 
who by his followers is assumed to be the creator of 
all things. We are taught that to doubt the truth of 
this description is a sin of so fearful a nature that it. 
insures the eternal damnation of all who commit it 
In these and in a thousand other things we behold 
the unmistakable evidences of an irreconcilable con¬ 
flict which is now going on between science and relig¬ 
ion, and which must continue to go on until the one 
or the other has ceased to have any advocates among 
the inhabitants of the earth. In vain may religious 
demagogues cry, “Peace! peace ! v From their very 
nature, there can be no peace between these two an¬ 
tagonistic systems. Either science or religion is bound 
to be utterly false. If, as science teaches, the phys¬ 
ical forces eternally inherent in matter produce all the 
phenomena of nature, then it is evident that the gods 
do not produce any of them. Indeed, upon this hy¬ 
pothesis, there cannot be any gods. If, on the other 
hand, as religion teaches, the gods produce all these 
phenomena, then it is equally certain that the physical 
forces do not produce any of them. Indeed, upon 
this hypothesis, there cannot be any physical forces; 


THE CREATOR. 


15 


what we are accustomed to call such being the direct 
powers of gods. The gods and the physical forces— 
two distinct sets of causes for the same set of effects— 
cannot possibly both be realities. If, then, gravity, elec¬ 
tricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, etc., are realities, 
of necessity, the Brahmas, the Juggernauts, the Jeho- 
vahs, etc., are myths; and vice verta. 

The Bible everywhere represents the earth as flat 
and stationary; the sky as a firmament or solid struct¬ 
ure, into which the heavenly bodies are set or stuck, 
etc. The Vedas, the Zend Avesta, the Koran, etc., 
teach very nearly the same ideas. These doctrines, 
then, are substantially indorsed by all the religionists 
of the world. No religious sect, acting in their corpo¬ 
rate or united capacity, have ever yet rejected these 
doctrines. Indeed, to do so would be to reject the sa¬ 
cred books which contain them, and the gods from 
whom those books are supposed to be derived. Since 
religion, then, is bound to retain these doctrines, and 
since science is bound to oppose them, there cannot 
possibly be any peace while religion and science both 
exist 

Until quite recently, religionists themselves were 
the very ones who most earnestly contended that the 
teachings of science and those of religion could never 
be made to harmonize. When Galileo taught that 
the earth was a globe revolving in space, the cham¬ 
pions of religion proved that his teachings in regard 
to these things were in direct conflict with the teach¬ 
ings of the Bible and of the Christian church. Having 
proved this fact, they would have burned him had he 
not, on his bended knees, in the most solemn man- 


16 


deity analyzed. 


ner, recanted these, his Infidel doctrines, and de¬ 
clared them to be wicked lies prompted by the devil. 
So when Bruno taught that there were other worlds 
besides the earth, the champions of religion proved 
that his teachings were in direct conflict with the 
teachings of the Bible and the Christian church. 
Having proved this fact, they proceeded to burn him at 
the stake. 

And these are only samples of the manner in which 
the Christian church, so long as she retained the 
power to do so, treated the advocates of science. She 
has never acknowledged that her doctrines on the sub¬ 
jects in question were erroneous, or that her cruel 
treatment of Galileo, Bruno, and other great scientists 
was wrong. She still worships the same bloody God, 
holds as infallible truth the same grossty unscientific 
Bible, and inculcates the same intolerant doctrines 
that led her then to commit so many acts of fearful 
cruelty. Having no longer the power to burn scien¬ 
tists, as Infidels, at the stake, she still dooms them to 
eternal burning in hell. What would she not do to 

them, and to all others who reject her absurd dogmas, 
if she only had the power? 

It is only since the church has begun to be worsted 
in the conflict, only since she has been forced to act 
on the defensive, only since she has begun to tremble 
for her own existence, that her champions have 
thought of crying, “Peace! peace! ’’ or of trying to 
show that the teachings of science and those of the 
Bible can ever be made to harmonize. Those persons, 

then, who cry “Peace! peace!” when there is no 
peace, and wberi, from the very nature of the case. 


THE CREATOR. 


17 


no peace is possible, are evidently either sadly want¬ 
ing in common honesty, and are merely giving forth 
the hypocritical and selfish cry of the badly whipped, 
or are woefully ignorant of the teachings of science 
and of the Bible, as well as of the blood-blackened 
history of the Christian church. 

Since the teachings of science, therefore, and those 
of religion or theolog} 7 cannot possibly both be true, 
and since they cannot possibly be made to harmonize, 
it becomes of the utmost importance for us to know 
on which side the truth does lie; to know which set 
of assigned causes, the gods or the physical forces, are 
the real producers of all the phenomena of nature, 
and which set are mere myths imposed upon the peo¬ 
ple for selfish or ignoble purposes, by cunning and 
unscrupulous men. Having determined this ques¬ 
tion, we can entirely dispense with either science 
or religion, and thus be spared all the trouble and ex¬ 
pense of the one or the other of these antagonistic 
systems. 

Are we, then, entirely dependent upon unchangea¬ 
ble laws, eternally existing in nature—upon laws with 
which we may become acquainted, and in harmony 
with which we may learn to live; or are we entirely 
at the mercy of a set of angry, jealous, capricious, and 
bloodthirsty beings, called gods, with whom we can 
never become acquainted, and with whom we can 
never learn to live in harmony? Are we, indeed, at 
the mercy of a set of beings who are governed by no 
laws at all; who, to glut their cruel vengeance, have 
had millions of men, women, and children indiscrimi¬ 
nately butchered in the most brutal manner; who, to 

4 / 


18 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


appease their unreasonable wrath, have even had 
their own innocent sons foully murdered; who con¬ 
tinue to bring men into existence only to burn them 
forever and forever in fire and brimstone; who can 
never get on without vast armies of priests to tell 
them what to do, to inform them what men are doing, 
to flatter them, and to interpret their will: who can be 
propitiated or bribed into something like good humor 
only by the most extravagant presents of roast beef, 
roast mutton, roast human flesh, and other similar 
luxuries, or by the most unmanly prostrations of our¬ 
selves in the dust before them, by the most cowardly 
whinings for mercy, which we must declare that we 
do not deserve ; by the most fulsome protestations of 
love, which we are not expected to feel; and by the 
most positive professions of faith, which we never re¬ 
ally possess, in that most absurd of all doctrines, the 
doctrine that one particular god is the father of 
another particular god, and that these two gods, and 
* a third god, a relative of theirs, at the same time, con* 
stitute only one god? Are we, I repeat, dependent 
upon the beautiful and harmonious laws of nature, as 
science teaches that we are, or upon this monstrous 
system of gods, as taught by religions? In order to 
determine this question correctly, we should lay aside 
all our prejudices, and fully and fairly examine the 
testimony on both sides. 

It is a self-evident fact that the universe is, of 
necessity, either created or uncreated. If it be cre¬ 
ated, then, of necessity, there must have been some 
person, or some power, that created it. If, on the 
other hand, it be uncreated, then, of equal necessity, 


THE CREATOR. 


19 


there could have been no such person, no such power. 
The whole thing, therefore, rests upon the truth or the 
falsity of the story of creation. This story is vari¬ 
ously told in the various systems of theology. That 
version of it, however, which is given in the Bible is 
the one to which I shall principally adapt the present 
discussion. 

We find the universe to be composed of three 
essential elements, space, matter, arid duration. Two 
of these, space and duration, are universally admitted 
to be, from their very nature, necessarily infinite, 
eternal, and, of course, uncreated. Having these two 
eternal and uncreated elements to begin with, there¬ 
fore, we find it just as easy to conceive that the one 
remaining element, matter, is also eternal and uncre¬ 
ated, as it is to conceive the same things of the person 
or the the power that must, otherwise, have created it 
Indeed I, for one, find it much easier to conceive 
these things of the universe, which I know does exist, 
than to conceive them of an assumed being, of whose 
real existence I have not a particle of proof. 

If, however, matter was created, then, of necessity, 
before its creation, infinite space was a perfect vacuum. 
Where, then, at that time, was your assumed Creator, 
and what was he ? Since there never could have been 
any outside to space, he must, of necessity, have been 
entirely inside of space, if he had any existence at all ; 
and since, as all his followers teach, he was omnipres¬ 
ent, he must, of equal necessity, have been coexten¬ 
sive with space. Since matter, as yet, had no exist 
ence, he could not have contained anything material 
in his own composition ; and since the entire absence 


20 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


of all matter constitutes a perfect vacuum, he must, of 
necessity, have been just such a vacuum. Finally, 
since it is utterly impossible for two perfect vacuums 
to occupy the same space at the same time, he must, 
of necessity, have been the very same perfect vacuum 
to which, as we have already seen, space itself neces¬ 
sarily reduces, on the hypothesis that the material of 
the universe was ever absent In other words, empty 
space becomes God, and God becomes empty space. 

Be all this as it may, however, he certainly was 
absolutely dependent for his dwelling-place upon 
space, a thing which he had not created. For the 
measure of his existence, he was also, in like manner, 
dependent upon duration, another thing which he had 
not created. These two elements of the universe not 
only could, but, of necessity, actually did exist inde¬ 
pendent of him. He, however, could not exist inde¬ 
pendent of either of them. At the very outset, there¬ 
fore, we find him to have been, of necessity, a depend¬ 
ent being, dependent upon at least two of the three 
essential elements of the universe. 

Besides all this, it is a truth universally admitted 
by intelligent men that nothing, as a cause, can ever 
give forth, as an effect, anything which itself does not 
contain. If, then, God, as a cause, ever gave forth, 
as an effect, the matter of the universe, it is evident 
that this matter, in some form, must, of necessity, 
have been eternally present in himself. But, as we 
have already seen, he was of necessity eternally pres¬ 
ent in space. Of equal necessity, then, the matter of 
the universe being in himself, being, as it were, an 
element in his own composition, must have been also 


THE CREATOR. 


21 


eternally present in space. Being thus, of necessity, 
eternally present in some form, both in God and in 
space, and being, of equal necessity, present in 
both of them, now it is evident that the matter of the 
universe always bore the same relation both to God 
and to space that it bears to them now. In other 
words, the entire universe has externally existed. No 
creation, therefore, ever took place, and consequently, 
no such being as your assumed creator ever existed. 

Although it is utterly impossible to conceive that 
anything ever came forth from God which was never 
in him; yet, since we perceive that, if we wish to 
retain any apparent use for him, it will never do to 
have matter eternally present in him, and he eternally 
present, as he must have been, in space, let us suppose 
that matter was originally entirely wanting throughout 
himself and space. Then, as we have already seen, 
he and space of necessity both reduce to one and the 
same absolutely boundless, perfect vacuum. 

We have now arrived at the original condition, at 
that which must, of necessity, have existed before 
anything material was created. We have arrived at 
the Creator himself; at an infinite perfect vacuum, 
and that alone. From this infinite perfect vacuum, 
then, from this God, if you prefer the latter term, we 
must evolve the material universe, or forever abandon 
the idea of a special creation and of a personal God. 
But how can we, from such a vacuum, evolve the 
material universe? None of the elements of matter 
are present inside of this vacuum, and there is no out¬ 
side to it How can it, then, give forth into being, 
throughout its own extent, that which itself never con- 


22 


DEITY ANALYZED, 


tained, and which could not have come from any other 
source ? 

Besides this, the creation of the universe, if it ever 
occurred, must, of necessity, have required motion of 
some kind. But motion consists in a change of place ; 
and since our infinite perfect vacuum already extends 
everywhere, it is evidently utterly impossible for it, 
for him, if you please, to have the slightest motion, in 
whole or in part, in any direction. It is equally evi¬ 
dent, therefore, that, from this, his utter inability to 
move, he never could have created the universe, and, 
consequently, never did create it. And if in order to 
give him room for motion, we make him less in extent 
than space, we give him limits, and, of necessity, ren¬ 
der him a finite being, utterly incapable of ever pro¬ 
ducing the infinite universe. Indeed, such a being, 
flying in a straight line, with a speed a million times 
greater than that of light, could never, in all the eons 
of eternity, reach a point any nearer the end of space 
than was the point from which he started. No matter, 
then, how extensive each one of them might be, it 
would evidently require an infinite number of such 
Gods to occupy infinite space and to create and sus¬ 
tain an infinite universe. 

Besides this, since our God and space, as w r e have 
already seen, of necessity, reduce to the very same 
perfect vacuum, how can the one be made less in 
extent than the other? How can they be separated ? 
In what respect do they differ? Can perfect vacuitv, 
under the one name, differ, in any respect, from per¬ 
fect vacuity, under the others? Can two different 
perfect vacuums occupy the same space at the same 


THE CREATOR. 


28 


time? If they can, and if the one called God be less 
in extent than the other, in what respect does that 
portion of the universal perfect vacuum in which he 
is present differ from that portion in which he is 
absent? Can perfect vacuity be doubled or con¬ 
densed? What can mark our finite God’s boundaries? 
When he, a perfect vacuum, departs from any place, 
does not a perfect vacuum, of necessity, still remain ? 
Does his presence, then, differ, in any respect, from 
his absence? If not, can he have—does he have—any 
existence at all ? 

Besides this, since every effect must have a cause, 
what was it that acted upon our perfect-vacuum God, 
and caused him to begin the work of creation, after • 
he had, of necessity, spent an absolute eternity in total 
inaction? Whatever the cause may have been that 
aroused him to creative action, it could not have been 
previously in operation. If it had been, it would 
have aroused him to action sooner. What was it, 
then, that caused that cause to begin operating, for the 
first time in all eternity, at that particular moment? 
So of all the still more remote causes; what caused 
each of them to begin operating, for the first time, 
just when it did ? We are bound to have an infinite 
chain of causes, all operating before the first action of 
our perfect-vacuum God. Theologians, then, evi¬ 
dently speak falsely when they declare him to be the 
“Great First Cause.” What were all those causes, 
and where were they ? As to what they were, we 
probably could never determine. As to where they 
were, however, we can very easily determine. Since 
there was no outside to space, they were bound to be 


24 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


inside of it, if they had any existence at all But 
inside of space, as we have already seen, there was 
nothing at all but perfect vacuity This, of neces¬ 
sity, had always, existed unchanged, and not being yet 
aroused to action, it could not, of course, have acted 
on itself to arouse itself to its first action. Will some 
theologian be so kind as to explain away the difficul¬ 
ties involved in this question ? 

Thus, by a series of strictly logical arguments and 
deductions, all based upon premises which no sane 
man will deny, I have now fully demonstrated that no 
being, no god who is either finite or infinite in his 
extent or presence, could ever have created the uni¬ 
verse. But, of necessity, all beings, all gods, are 
either finite or infinite in their extent or presence. In 
demonstrating, therefore, that the universe w r as never 
created by a being, a god belonging to either of these 
two classes, I have clearly demonstrated that it w r as 
never created at all; that it is absolutely eternal in its 
existence, and absolutely self-sustaining in its powers. 

I will now proceed, in the same manner, to demon¬ 
strate that all these things are equally true of a being, 
of a God, who is either finite or infinite in the duration 
of his existence. 

If the universe was ever created at all, the period 
which has elapsed since its creation is, of necessity, a 
finite period containing six thousand years, more or 
less. All intelligent persons will, of course, admit 
this fact. They will also admit that the whole dura¬ 
tion of God’s existence, up to the present moment, is 
composed of the period that elapsed before the crea¬ 
tion, plus the period which has elapsed since that 


THE CREATOR. 


25 


event. No one will think of claiming that there is 
any eternity in the six thousand years, more or less, 
which have elapsed since the beginning of creation. 
If, then, God’s existence be eternal, as all his followers 
claim that it is, the eternal portion of it must, of 
necessity, be that which elapsed before the beginning 
of creation. But an infinite or eternal period is abso¬ 
lutely incapable of ever having an end, or of ever 
being rendered any less. Were we to multiply a line 
of small figures a million miles in length, by itself a 
million times, and then let every unit in the product 
represent a million of ages, the result taken from 
eternity, from the period which you claim that God 
existed before the creation, would not render that 
period any the less. No period, however immense it 
may be, can be infinite or eternal, if it ever does, or 
ever can, have an end. 

That period of God’s existence, however, which pre¬ 
ceded his first creative act, did have an end. It could 
not have been otherwise. No matter at what point in 
duration that first creative act was performed, God, of 
necessity, before he could perform it had first to entirely 
live out, completely end, all that potion of his exist¬ 
ence which preceded that point. This is a self-evident 
fact No one will attempt to deny it. However im¬ 
mense that period may once have been, it had of ne¬ 
cessity to grow less and less until it had all elapsed and 
the creative point was reached. Had it not thus grown 
less and less, and finally come to an end, the creative 
point could never have been reached at all. Thus you 
see that God could not have lived, and consequently 
did not live, during an infinite or eternal period pre- 


26 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


vious to the creation. The pre-creative period of his 
existence could not possibly have had an end, as we 
have seen that it certainly did have, without first hav¬ 
ing had a beginning. In other words, I have now 
fully demonstrated that of necessity God had a begin¬ 
ning if the universe had. In order, then, to make God 
eternal, we must of necessity place the eternal portion 
of his existence in the period which has elapsed since 
the universe has been in evistence. If we do this, how’- 
ever, we necessarily make the universe itself eternal, 
and consequently uncreated, and this renders it utterly 
impossible for there ever to have been any creation or 
Creator at all. 

And now you are bound to admit either that there 
never was any Creator at all or that, if there w r as, he 
was a finite being, having, like ourselves, had a begin¬ 
ning of existence, and being, like ourselves, capable 
of having an end of existence. If you make the for¬ 
mer of these admissions, you become like myself, an 
Infidel, an Atheist, such a person as your church, 
while she had the power to do so, always burned to 
death, and such a person as she still delights to doom 
to eternal burning^ in another world. If you make 
the latter admission, you must of necessity have an 
older God to bring your God into existence, an older 
God still to bring that God into existence, and so on 
for an infinite series of Gods. You are in precisely 
the condition of the man who attempted to account 
for the supposed stability of the earth by assuming 
that it stood on a turtle’s back, that this turtle stood 
on another turtle's back, and so on down through an 
infinite series-of turtles. Besides all this, how do you 

.» ' v 


THE CREATOR. 


27 


know that God will continue to live forever in the 
future? Since he certainly lived out that entire por¬ 
tion of his existence which preceded the creation, why 
may he not in the same way live out that entire por¬ 
tion which follows the creation ? Mav not an infinite 
series of Gods, then, be just as necessary in the future 
as I have shown them to have been in the past? 

Again, it is a self-evident truth that in whatever way 
it is possible for one being of any kind to derive his 
existence, it is equally possible for other persons or 
other beings of the same kind to derive their existence. 

It is evident, then, that in whatever way your God de¬ 
rived his existence other gods of the same kind may 
have derived theirs. If he be self-existent, they may 
be self existent also. Why should they not be so? If 
he resulted from pre-existing causes, why may not 
they have resulted from the same causes ? So, on the 
other hand, if all other gods are the results of mere 
assumptions on the part of the ignorant and supersti¬ 
tious men who first worshiped them, why may not 
your God be the result of similar assumptions on the 
part of the equally ignorant and superstitious men who 
first worshiped him ? As I shall show, these mere as¬ 
sumptions are indeed the sources whence all gods de¬ 
rive their existence. 

The Bible nowhere attempts to prove the existence . 
of a God. It simply assumes his existence as some¬ 
thing in which the people of pre-Bible times already 
believed. Your belief in the existence of a God, then 
rests not on the testimony of the Bible, but on the 
mere opinions and assumptions of the ignorant and 
and superstitious pagans who lived before there was 


23 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


any Bible. And of how much value as evidence on 
such a subject are the mere opinions and assumptions 
of such men ? Were men thus totally ignorant of all 
the physical forces of nature, and filled with the most 
absurd superstitions, any better qualified to arrive at 
the truth in regard to this matter than are the great 
scientists and philosophers of the present time? If not, 
then, since none of these great scientists and philoso¬ 
phers have ever been able, after the most careful tests 
and the most thorough researches, to discover even the 
faintest trace of such a being, can you be absolutely 
certain that those ignorant and superstitious primitive 
men did, without any tests or researches at all, actually 
succeed in finding a real live God? If they actually 
did find such a God, which one of the many gods of 
the world was he ? Are you sure that he was your 
Gcd? 

You claim that your God often revealed himself in 
various ways to his first worshipers. But this is pure 
assumption. You have not a particle of proof that 
such was the fact; and you may just as well assume 
the existence of your God, at once, and be done with 
it. as to assume the proofs of his existence. Besides 
this, the Brahmins, the Budhhists, and all other sects, 
make the ver}> same assumptions in regard to their 
respective gods. And are not such assumptions worth 
just as much in each of these cases as they are in your 
own ? 

Admitting, however, that your God did reveal him¬ 
self to his first worshipers, may not each of the other 
gods in like manner have revealed himself to his first 
worshipers? What proofs have you that there is 


THE CREATOR. 


29 


only one god, and that your God is that one? What 
single argument can you advance in favor of your 
God which cannot with equal force and propriety be 
advanced by every other sect in favor of theirs? Do 
you wish to arrive at the truth in this matter, or do 
you merely wish to establish the existence of your 
own God, and of him alone, regardless of the truth? 
Suppose that Brahma. Juggernaut, or Joss were the 
only true God, would you wish to know that fact, and 
would you abandon your present God, your Bible, and 
your Jesus, and worship that true God ? If you . 
would not, do you not stand self-convicted of loving 
creeds more than truth? Yk>u and I both believe that 
all the other gods are mere myths, wicked, priestly in¬ 
ventions and impositions palmed off by their inventors 
for sinister purposes upon the ignorance and the su¬ 
perstition of the great mass of mankind. Only in re¬ 
gard to your own God do we differ in opinion—only 
in regard to the God with whom you were thoroughly 
stuffed before you were old enough to reason, and in 
regard to whom you have never since dared to exer¬ 
cise your reason. I fully believe this God to be, like 
all the rest, a mere myth—a wicked invention and im¬ 
position, palmed off upon the people, as are all the 
others, by a set of cunning and unscrupulous priests. 

If my belief be founded on truth, are you willing to 
know that fact, and are you willing to abandon that 
wicked, priestly imposition which you call God? If 
you are not thus willing to know and follow the truth, 
do you not stand self-convicted of being bad men, en¬ 
emies to truth, to knowledge, and to the best interests 
of mankind ? 


so 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


It is a well-known and universally-admitted fact 
that all the gods had their origin in primitive condi¬ 
tions of society, and among men groveling in igno¬ 
rance and superstition. No god ever was, or ever 
could be, successfully started among educated and in¬ 
telligent people; and, in his character, no god ever 
was, or ever could be, superior to the conceptions of 
those among whom he originated. Indeed, every one 
of the gods has been a faithful reflection of the race, 
the color, the nationality, the opinions, and other 
characteristics of the men who conceived or invented 
• him. Thus, the gods of the Hindoos are all Hindoos, 
the gods of the Chinese are all Chinamen, and the God 
of the Hebrews was a Hebrew. He never claimed to 
be anytning else than a Hebrew, and never claimed to 
be the god of any other people. He faithfully re¬ 
flected the selfishness, the jealousy, the treachery, the 
blood-thirstiness, the love of polygamy, and all the 
other traits of character that were prominent among 
the leaders of the Hebrews at the time they framed 
his character. He also reflected, with equal fidelity, 
the ideas then prevalent among the Hebrews of a flat 
and stationary earth, a solid sky or firmament, a day 
independent of the sun, etc., etc. 

And all this is equally true of the dozen or more 
demi-gods, or so-called saviors of the world. Accord¬ 
ing to the teachings of their respective sets of follow¬ 
ers, each of these demi-gods was begotten by the prin¬ 
cipal god of the particular country in which he 
chanced to appear; each was born of a virgin, and 
each was crucified for the salvation of the world All 
of these demi-gods have been of the race, the color, 


THE CREATOR. 


31 


and the other characteristics of the people among 
whom they respectively appeared. Crishnawas a pare 
Hindoo, and this fact shows that his parents were 
both Hindoos. Mithra was a pure Persian, and this 
fact shows that his parents were both Persians. Jesus 
was a pure Hebrew, and this fact shows that his 
parents were both Hebrews. So of all the others of 
these so-called saviors. Indeed, no people can well 
conceive of a god, or the son of a god, as differing 
from themselves in race, color, opinions, and other 
characteristics. 

If, as you teach, your God be the common father 
or Creator of the whole human race, then lie cannot 
be any more closely allied to one people, or to one 
color, than he is to another; and if, as you also teach, 
he is no respecter of persons, then he cannot, on ac¬ 
count of race or color, prefer one person to another. 
Indeed, that would be a very degrading idea of him, 
which would make him like men, subject to the prej¬ 
udices, the antipathies, etc., of race or color. Suppose, 
then, that instead of selecting a woman of our own 
race and color to be the mother of his son, or rather 
of himself, he had selected an African virgin, and 
had had himself incarnated as a woolly-headed, thick- 
lipped, flat-nosed, protruding-jawed, spindle-shanked, 
long-heeled, flat-footed, “ buck ” negro, with the of¬ 
fensive odor peculiar to that race, could you have 
conceived of him as your God? You know that you 
could not, even though his claims to be so considered 
were twice as well established as those of Jesus. A 
white man can no more reflect a colored God than he 
can reflect a colored image in a looking-glass. So of 


32 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


all other races, and of all other colors. None of them 
can reflect gods differing from themselves. It must 
forever be in vain, then, for the people of one race and 
of one color to attempt to palm off their gods—reflec¬ 
tions of themselves—upon the people of another race 
and of another color, who are totally unable to reflect 
any such gods. All history goes to prove the truth 
of this remark. So long as gods remain in use at all, 
every people will have gods like unto themselves. 
Show me the gods of a people, then, and I will de¬ 
scribe that people. Show me the people, and I will 
describe their gods. 

At first, the gods were au assumed or invented 
simply to account for the various phenomena of na¬ 
ture, the real causes of which the men of primitive 
times, in their extreme ignorance, could neither per¬ 
ceive nor understand. Had the real cause of these 
phenomena been always known, men would never 
have needed any such things as gods, and would 
never have thought of assuming that any such things 
existed. Until comparatively recent times, however, 
the physical forces now known to inhere in matter as 
essential properties or conditions were entirely un¬ 
known. Primitive men had no idea of any agency 
or cause of motion except that of a will or mind like 
their own. To them, all the phenomena of nature 
seemed to be produced by the direct agency of living 
and conscious but invisible beings, with thoughts and 
passions like those of men. These imaginary beings 
were called gods, and were accredited with power suf¬ 
ficient to produce all the phenomena of nature. Thus 
thunder became the voice of a god. Hurricanes, 


THE CREATOR. 


33 


earthquakes, etc., became fearful exhibitions of the 
uneontrolabie fury of a god. Famines, pestilences, 
etc., became equally fearful exhibitions of the more 
deliberate revenge or malignity of a god. All the 
gods, therefore, were at first represented as being sub¬ 
ject to frequent fits of the most fearful fury; as har¬ 
boring long-pent-up feelings of the most horrible re¬ 
venge; and as pouring out destruction alike upon the 
innocent and the guilty, without any distinction of 
age, sex, or condition. Of course such beings were re¬ 
garded as objects of fear far more than of love. 

It was perfectly natural, therefore, for men to seek, 
just as they did, to win the favor and to appease the 
anger of these terrible gods. Believing, as they did, 
that the gods had appetites and passions similar to 
their own, it was perfectly natural, too, for men to 
seek, just as they did, to propitiate the gods by the 
very same means that they were wont to use in propiti- 
atingoneanother, by offerings, supplications, adulations, 
etc. Flesh, constituting as it did, the principal article of 
food, the only wealth, in fact, of the people, was, conse¬ 
quently, the most usual and the most acceptable offering 
made by men to one another. They, therefore, very 
naturally supposed that it would be equally acceptable 
to the gods also. Hence it is that, in the earlier part of 
their respective careers, while their respective sets of 
worshipers still lived savage or pastoral lives, all the 
gods were wont to be propitiated by means of meat 
offerings. Your adopted God, who was then the tute- 
larv divinity of the Hebrews alone, is no exception to 
this rule. His anger, which was constantly being 
aroused, could nearly always be bought off with a cer- 


84 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


tain amount of roast beef, roast mutton, or roast 
maiden, of which he was supposed to be exceedingly 
fond, and on the savory odor of which he was sup¬ 
posed to regale himself, as they were sent up to him 
on columns of smoke and heated air. This is the 
plain teaching of the Bible. 

When, however, men abandoned the savage and the 
pastoral mode of living, when the mere obtaining of 
food ceased to be the chief object of existence; when 
regular governments were established; when great men, 
having an abundance of food drawn from agricultural 
sources, ceased to value or to demand presents of 
meats or other articles of diet; when, in place of such 
presents, they began to demand from their subjects or 
followers certain marks of honor and certain oaths or 
protestations of love, loyalty, admiration, etc., the 
gods were supposed to have undergone a similar 
change in their tastes and in their demands. The 
simple method of buying off their anger with meat 
offerings, therefore, gave place to the method now in 
use, in most countries, of accomplishing the same 
object by means of the most shallow and extravagant 
flatteries and the most servile protestations of love, 
loyalty, admiration, etc. In order, however, to turn 
the people away from the sacrificial mode of worship, 
to which they had alwa3’s been accustomed, and get 
them to adopt modes more beneficial to priests, 
princes, and other great men, certain fables had to be 
invented. The substance of these fables was that cer¬ 
tain good men, or demi gods, Chrishna, Mithra, Pro¬ 
metheus, Jesus, and others, had been offered once for 
all as meat offerings or sacrifices, each to some offended 


THE CREATOR. 


36 


god, and had thus rendered such sacrifices no longer 
necessary. The abolition of the sacrificial mode of 
worship w r as certainly a good thing, and it would 
almost have justified the invention of the fables, by 
means of which it was accomplished, had not equally 
absurd and pernicious methods been adopted in its 
stead. 

If tl ie gods know anything at all, they certainly 
know, better than any one can inform them, just how 
good, how wise, and how great they are; and, also, 
just what are their duties and their intentions. They 
are supposed by their respective sets of worshipers, 
however, to have the bump of approbativeness so pro¬ 
digiously developed, and to be so totally devoid of 
all modesty that, although for thousands of years 
they have been daily and hourly told of their various 
excellencies, they still take immense delight in having 
these same things constantly repeated to their faces in 
the most public and ostentatious manner. So fond, 
indeed, are they supposed to be of this one kind of 
amusement that they devote their whole time to it, 
and are made so good-natured by it that they are 
willing to pardon the most hardened of sinners, and to 
do his bidding, if he will only sprawl a few times in 
the dirt before them, will have himself soused into a 
goose pond or have a little water sprinkled on his head 
by one of their priests, will stuff them with a goodly 
amount of this fulsome flattery, and will profess to 
believe that a certain god—an old bachelor—is the 
father of another god who is as old as himself, who, 
in fact, is himself. I wish you, who style yourselves 
orthodox Christians, and who are so intensely bitter 

* V 


SB 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


in your denunciations of Infidels, to watch yourselves, 
whenever you go to worship, and see whether you do 
not invariably begin by stuffing your gods with a 
goodly quantity of pure “ blarney,” and then end by 
giving them a multitude of instructions in regard to 
the discharge of what you assume to be their several 
duties. When viewed in the light of reason, science, 
and common sense, how supremely ridiculous do these 
mummeries become, and yet they are all there is, all 
there can be, of that relic of barbarism and supersti¬ 
tion called religious worship. 

As x , y, and 2 are assumed to represent the un¬ 
known quantities in an algebraic equation, so, as I 
have already stated, the gods were assumed to repre¬ 
sent the unknown causes of the various phenomena of 
nature; and as x , y, and z become totally useless the 
moment the unknown quantities which they have been 
made to represent become known, so, in like manner, 
the gods become totally useless the moment the un¬ 
know causes, which they have been made to represent, 
become known. The gods, standing thus in the place 
of the unknown in nature, are evidently mere personi¬ 
fications of men’s ignorance, and are found to be neces¬ 
sary just in proportion to the amount of that igno¬ 
rance. You all very well know that we never find 
any need of the gods, or any proof of their existence, 
in those things which we fully understand. In igno¬ 
rance. alone, then, we find all the need we have of 
Such beings, and all the proof we have of their exist¬ 
ence. 

To him who, like the originators of the various 
gods, is totally ignorant of all the physical forces, 



THE CREATOR. 


every phenomenon of nature requires the direct agency 
ut a god for its production. To such a person, there¬ 
fore, every phenomenon of nature constitutes, of 
course, a positive proof of the existence of such be¬ 
ings. To him who is ignorant of comparatively few 
of the physical forces, there are comparatively few of 
the phenomena of nature that require the agency of 
a god in their production. To such a person, there¬ 
fore, there are comparatively few proofs of the exist¬ 
ence of the gods. Finally, to him who has a knowl¬ 
edge of the whole economy of nature, there is nothing 
at all that requires the agency of a god for its produc¬ 
tion, and, consequently, no proof at all that there are 
any such beings as gods. From all this you can 
easily understand the well-known fact that the most 
ignorant people have always made the most devoted 
religionists, and that what you stigmatize as Infidelity 
has never prevailed except among the educated and 
the intelligent 

Since the gods cannot possiby reflect anything 
higher than the conceptions of the ignorant and super¬ 
stitious primitive men who invented them, they are 
necessarily inferior to the finer conceptions of the best 
minds of the present day. In order, therefore, to still ' 
cling to these gods, these antiquated embodiments of 
ignorance and superstition, men must have their 
minds religioned, tied back, as the word means, from 
the light of the brighter present to the impenetrable 
gloom of the dark past. To men whose minds are 
thus religioned, tied back to gods that never advance, 
there can never be any such word as progress; never 
any such motto as onward and upward.” 


38 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


Although they were, at first, assumed merely to 
represent the unknown causes of natural phenomena, 
the gods soon became a source of power and of profit 
to those who pretended to interpre^their will, and to 
act as their ministers. Around every god, therefore, 
of any note, there very naturally arose an order of 
selfish and cunning men, called priests, who wished to 
• live in luxury upon the labors of others, and who elab¬ 
orated a system of religion, of tying men’s minds 
back, which would render themselves absolutelv nec- 
essary to the people, and which would insure to them¬ 
selves great hovers, powers, immunities, and emolu¬ 
ments. Hence it is that no god of any note has ever 
been able to get on without a vast army of priests, 
interpreters, and advisers, all supported by immense 
revenues drawn from the labors of the deluded people. 
Whenever any god has ceased to be a paying institu¬ 
tion, his priests have always promptly abandoned his 
service and entered into the service of a better paving 
god. A poor god, like a poor man, rarely has many 
friends. 

As might have been expected, these various antag¬ 
onistic systems of religion have been constantly com¬ 
ing into collision with one another. Nearly all his. 
tory, therefore, is a mere recital of the inhuman butch¬ 
eries and other horrible deeds perpetrated upon one 
another, in the name of their respective gods, bv the 
various sects of religionists. Indeed, there never was 
a god of any note that was not carried to eminence by 
his followers through rivers of human blood. This 
is especially true of one of the gods that you profess 
to worship. This is the old God of the Hebrews. 


I 


THE CREATOR. 


39 


Whether we regard the earlier part of his career, when 
lie was the tutelary divinity of the Hebrew nation 
alone, or the latter part, after he was adopted as one 
of the Gods of the Christian church, we find that his 
record surpasses that of any other god in its blackness 
of blood and slaughter. 

As I have already stated, there is no proof at all of 
the existence of any such beings as gods, except the 
phenomena which they are supposed to produce. 
When, therefore, science establishes the fact that these 
phenomena are produced by an entirely different set of 
causes—the physical forces inherent in matter—the 
gods, of course, are driven out of existence, or, at 
least, forced to hide themselves behind other phe¬ 
nomena, more distant and more obscure, whose real 
causes science has not yet revealed. Thus it has been 
with thunder, which was once almost universally sup¬ 
posed to be, as represented in the Bible, produced by 
the direct agency of a god, either bellowing with Ins 
mighty lungs, or stamping upon the floor of heaven 
with his immense feet. Indeed, notwithstanding the 
united opposition of all sects of religionists, science 
has now succeeded in driving the gods from nearly all 
the phenomena of nature. There now remains but 
few things behind which a god can conceal himself. 

Since every religionist is, of necessity, tied back to 
the belief that his gods are the producers of motion, 
of light, of life—all of the phenomena of nature, he 
will never dare seek—he will never be able to know 
the true causes of any of these thing. No one will 
ever think of seeking any other cause for a phenom¬ 
enon which he has always been taught to attribute to 


40 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the agency of a god, unless he first comes to doubt 
that assumed god-cause. Take human life, for in¬ 
stance; who tliat fully believes, as most of you prob¬ 
ably do, that this was derived directly from a god, 
would ever think of seeking its true source, in the 
forces and other properties eternally inherent in mat¬ 
ter? But, in the eyes of religionists, to doubt a god- 
cause is to become an Infidel, fit only for eternal burn¬ 
ings. Hence it is that no genuine religionist, while 
remaining such, has ever added anything to the treas- 

• ures of science. Hence it is that nearly all the sublime 
truths ever brought to light from the great arcana of 
nature, have been brought to light by those bravest 
and noblest of men whom you stigmatize as Infidels. 

If, as 3^011 teach, your God be a person, then of ne¬ 
cessity he must possess all the essential characteristics 
of personality. He must have limits or boundaries of 
some kind, and these, of course, give him shape. If 
he moves, as he must to perform any works at all, he 
must of necessity change place, and his presence must 
in some way differ from his absence. If he thinks, as 
he must to be an intelligent being, there must of ne¬ 
cessity be some point within him from which his 
thoughts proceed. The point must, of necessity, dif¬ 
fer from all his other parts, and this difference in¬ 
volves the necessity of organization. So, if he has 

• sex, as he must have to be a father, as }'ou teach that 
he is, he must, of necessity, have organization, without 
which sex cannot exist. So of seeing, hearing, loving, 
speaking, and all the other characteristics of personal¬ 
ity. Without organization, he could not possess any 
of these characteristics. 


THE CREATOR. 


41 


But the moment we thus limit him in his extent or 
preseuce by any of these characteristics of person¬ 
ality we make him, of necessity, a finite being. Be¬ 
yond him, then, in all directions, there must of neces¬ 
sity extend an infiuity of space, over which no finite 
being like himself could ever, in all the ages of eter¬ 
nity, pass, even in one single direction. Thus you see 
that your personal Grod is, of necessity, totally inade¬ 
quate to the work of creating and sustaining the ab¬ 
solutely boundless universe. Your Bible, therefore, 
very wisely has him devote his entire attention to this 
world alone, and, most of the time, to only a very 
small portion even of it. It has him take up his 
abode for many centuries in a small wooden box, and 
afterwards in a house, among one small nation of peo¬ 
ple, and enjoy the roast beef and other good things 
with which they supplied him. It has him beget his 
only son in this world, and has him sacrifice the life 
of that son for the salvation of the people of this world 
only. It has him totally ignorant of the existence of 
anv other worlds, and even of the size and the shape 
of this world. It has him believe that the earth is 
flat and stationary, that the sky is a solid structure or 
“firmamentthat day is independent of the light of 
the sun, etc. Finally, with him in heaven, it has none 
but the inhabitants of this one little world. Would it 
not be well, then, for you to follow the example of 
your Bible, and have him leave to an infinite number 
of other gods, or, better still, to the laws of nature, 
the care of the countless millions of worlds and sys¬ 
tems of worlds that roll in their unspeakable glory 


42 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


throughout the boundless regions of necessarily un¬ 
created space ? 

If, on the other hand, your God is not a person, and 
is not limited as a person must be, what is he? What 
can he be but empty space, as I have elsewhere shown, 
or, at least, a shapeless, invisible, imponderable, illim¬ 
itable, incomprehensible negation, in every respect ex¬ 
actly equivalent to empty space and identical with it? 
He cannot be where space is not, nor can space be 
where he is not. Of necessity, then, they are coex¬ 
tensive and inseparable. If, therefore, they be not 
one and the same thing, in what respect do they dif¬ 
fer ? They each have one and only one property, ca 
pacity, or characteristic. This is the same in both, 
and is simply infinite extension in all directions. 
They are both equally incapable of having either a 
beginning or an end, a top or a bottom, a center or a 
circumference. They are both equally incapable ot 
being increased or diminished, multiplied or divided. 
They are both equally incapable of moving or of pro¬ 
ducing motion, of seeing or of being seen, of hearing 
or of being heard, of feeling or being felt, of loving 
or of being loved, of possessing knowledge or of 
imparting it. Indeed, it is a well-established truth 
that no infinite quantity of any kind can possibly be 
either the subject or object of any operation whatever. 
What, tl len, can your infinite, your shapeless, your 
motionless God be, or what can he do, totally desti¬ 
tute, as he necessarily is, of all substance, of all 
thought, of all sensation, of all consciousness, and of 
all motion? 

If this infinite negation—this God of yours—thinks. 


THE CREATOR. 


43 


Ins thoughts must, of necessity, have their birth at 
some point in space and also in duration. These 
thoughts, then, having thus a beginning both of their 
existence and of their flight, are necessarily finite in 
their character, and hence utterly incapable of ever 
extending throughout infinity. Your utterly empty 
God’s thoughts, therefore, originating, as they neces¬ 
sarily must, at some point within himself, are evi¬ 
dently utterly incapable of ever reaching throughout 
his own infinite extent. No one part of him, then, 
can ever possibly know what other parts, infinitely 
distant, may be thinking. Besides this, as we all 
know, thought requires an object as well as a subject 
What, then, were the objects upon which your God 
exercised his thoughts during the eternity which, of 
necessity, must have preceded his first act of creation? 
During all that utterly endless period—which, how¬ 
ever, as you teach, did come to an end—there was 
nothing in existence, except your God himself. And 
did he, think you, spend that utterly endless and yet 
actually ended period thinking of nothing but himself? 

You may say that he was not long thus alone and 
unemployed—that he began the work of creation very 
soon. Very soon after what? After the beginning 
of his own existence, of course. On no other hypothe¬ 
sis can we have him exist for any other than an eter¬ 
nal period, alone and unemployed. Of necessity, he 
must have been alone and unemployed during all that 
period which preceded his first act of creation; and, 
of equal necessity, that period must have been either a 
finite or an infinite period. If you make it a finite 
period, then, as I have already shown, you make your 


44 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


God, of necessity, a finite being, and involve the addi¬ 
tional necessity of an infinite series of older gods. 
This will never do. You will have to make that an 
infinite period But an infinite period is absolutely 
incapable of ever growing less. When, therefore, you 
have placed your God at an infinite distance, in dura¬ 
tion, beyond the point at which the first act in creation 
is assumed to have been performed, you evidently 
render it utterly impossible for him ever to be at less 
than an infinite distance beyond that point. He never 
could have entirely lived out—entirely ended—an infi¬ 
nite period; and, consequently, he never could have 
reached the creative point at all. It is just as utterly 
impossible for anything to come in from the bounds 
of space or of duration to a point within it, as it is for 
it to go out from such a point to such bounds. If 
space or duration be infinite, when taken in the one 
direction, it is evidently bound to be equally infinite 
when taken in the other. And now which horn of 
this dilemma, the finite or the infinite, will you take? 
You are compelled to take the one or the other; but, 
take whichever you may, your creation becomes an 
utter impossibility, your God an utter failure. 

Besides all this, where are the points located at 
which your God’s thoughts originate; in what respect 
do these points differ from other points in himself and 
in space; and what acts upon these points, more than 
upon others, to make them give forth thoughts? 
Where are your God’s senses or faculties of seeing, 
hearing, loving, hating, etc., located, and in what 
respect do these localities differ from other portions of 
himself and of space? In what does his sex consist, 


THE CREATOR. ' 


45 


and where is it located ? Bow and where did the seed 
or life-germ, from which his son sprang, originate, and 
how was it conveyed to the proper spot in the body 
of the mother? Since, according to your own teach¬ 
ings, your God has neither body nor parts, what por¬ 
tion of him—what portion of infinite space—with 
which he everywhere coincides, and from which he is 
utterly inseparable—can be so brought to bear upon a 
woman as to put her in a condition to become a 
mother? Besides this, since infinite space and your 
infinite God, of necessity, coincide throughout their 
entire extent, since the very same part of each must, 
of necessity, be brought to bear upon the woman, at 
the very same moment and in the very same manner, 
how are we to know which is the father of the child, 
empty space, or your equally empty God ? Finally, 
if either of them alone, or both of them together, can 
beget one child, why may they not beget many ? Can 
any of our women be entirely safe with space and 
your God all around them? 

You teach that Jesus was begotten by just such a 
God as I have described, and yet you also teach that 
Jesus himself was this very same God. If this is not 
the climax of absurdity, I would like to know what 
is. Your doctrine is worse than that of the ancient 
pagans by which a god, when desiring to beget off¬ 
spring, sometimes materialized himself, on the Katie 
King plan, and, in the form of a man, sexually em¬ 
braced the virgin whom he had selected to be the 
mother of his son. Strange as it may seem to the 
uninitiated, daughters never resulted from these gal- 


46 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


lant godly adventures. Sons alone were in demand, 
and sons alone were begotten. 

At other times, when wishing to propagate his 
species, a god would enter into, or take possession of, 
a living man, and, through his organs of sex, accom¬ 
plish his object, just as a spirit of the present day, 
when wishing to give communications, does so, some* 
times, through the hand or the tongue of a medium. 
This latter method of procreation, being the more 
practical, was the one which the gods generally 
adopted. It was much the more popular, too, with the 
priests, whose bodies the gods invariably used on such 
occasions. 

And now, let me ask, are any of you so completely 
blind as to suppose that your educated and intelligent 
priests and preachers themselves believe the mon¬ 
strously absurd doctrines which they preach to you 
concerning this utterly empty God of yours, concern¬ 
ing the miraculous conception of Jesus, and concern¬ 
ing Je3us being himself the very same empty God 
that begot him ? As shepherds, these men do, indeed, 
feed the sheep. They feed them, too, on just such 
stuff as they perceive that the sheep like, and that 
they perceive enables the sheep to make to them the 
finest yield of wool and of mutton. But does any 
intelligent shepherd himself swallow down the same 
kind of stuff that he feeds to his sheep? And does 
such a shepherd usually feed his sheep long without 
also fleecing them ? For what but the profits does 
such a shepherd labor? You play sheep. Your 
priests, many of whom are thorough Infidels, play 
shepherd. And who gets the wool ? Suppose that 


THE CREATOR. 


47 


all of your priests could double or treble their salaries 
and their popularity among the people, by turning to 
some other set of gods, how many of the more intelli¬ 
gent of them, do you think, would continue to preach 
the Gods of the Bible? 

You teach that your God is all spirit. Probably 
he is. But what is spirit? The word comes from the 
Latin spirare , to breathe, to blow, etc., and formerly 
meant neither more nor less than the air, which we 
breathe, and which was supposed to be a god, or at 
least the breath of a god. This was justly regarded as 
a very important god, since upon him depended the 
existence of all living things. So far as was then 
known, this god was omnipresent. In him, men were 
truly said to live, and move, and have their being. 
Men dwelt in him, and he in them. He it was that 
produced plenty by bringing rain. He it was that 
produced famines by withholding rain. He it was 
that produced pestilences by surrounding the people, 
and filling their lungs and their blood with malarious 
influences. He it was that removed pestilences by 
bearing away these malarious influences. This is your 
spirit-God. 

With this God vou have combined the sun, which 
was, very appropriately, called the “Most High God.” 
To this latter God, your Sunday was, and still is, sacred. 
From him it takes its name, and he it is that you wor¬ 
ship on that day. In Greek his name was Helios, from 
which our word holy is said to be derived. Your 
Holy Bible is simply the Helios Biblos, or sun’s book, 
of the ancients. Helios was Joshua’s God. “ Then 
spake Joshua to the Lord . . . and said, Sun, stand 


48 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


thou still upon Gibeon,” etc. The “sun” and the 
“Lord,” here addressed by Joshua, are certainly one 
and the same person. This is the God that dwells in 
heaven, and from whom proceed the angels of light 
Like the word spirit, the word ghost formerly meant 
nothing more than air; especially that form or condi¬ 
tion of air which is produced by the action of the 
lungs, and which we call breath. The Holy Ghost, 
then, was simply the breath of the sun. “ And sud¬ 
denly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rush¬ 
ing, mighty wind.” . . . This is spoken of the 

Holy Ghost on the occasion of its coming upon the 
apostles after the resurrection of Jesus. “And when 
he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto 
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” As here commu¬ 
nicated, the Holy Ghost was certainly in the form of 
the air which we breathe Indeed, it was nothing more 
nor less than the breath of Jesus—nothing more nor 
less than the common air set in motion by the action 
of his lungs. Since this air, or breath, however, was 
supposed to have originally proceeded from Helios, it 
was called Helios* breath, or Holy Ghost, This sun’s 
breath, or Holy Ghost, was believed to be itself a god ; 
and yet, combining, as it apparently does, with the 
light of the sun, it and this latter God, the “Father,” 
from whom all things proceed, were supposed, in some 
mysterious manner, to constitute only one God. In 
this apparent union of light and air, you have two of 
the three persons of your Godhead, or Holy Trinity. 
In themselves, these two gods, the sun and the air, are 
very good gods. I have nothing to say against them, 


THE CREATOR. 


49 


I condemn only the false teachings of priests concern¬ 
ing them. 

It is only by a figure of speech called personifica¬ 
tion that these two inanimate objects have been ele¬ 
vated to the rank of intelligent beings. And in this, 
their personified form, how came you by them ? Had 
you any more to do in the selecting of them than you 
had in the selecting of your race, your nationality, or 
your color? Were you not simply born, and equally 
so, to all these things? And is the fact that you hap¬ 
pened to be born to certain gods any proof that these 
are the only true gods? If it is, then is not the same 
fact of your birth an equal proof that yours is the 
only true race, the only true nationality, and the only 
true color? 

Wbo or what was it that was so partial and so un¬ 
just as to have you born to the only true gods, while 
he, or it, has the great majority of mankind born to 
false gods ? 

Had you happened to be born to Buddhism, would • 
you not have been just as sincere Buddhists as you 
now are Christians? And would the fact of your 
birth, in that case, have been any proof that Buddha 
was the only true God ? Had an equal number of 
Buddhists happened to be born to Christianity, would 
they not, in all probability, have been just as sincere 
Christians as you now are? In that case, who would 
have had the true gods, you, the Buddhists, or they, 
the Christians? 

Since it all depends upon the circumstances of the 
place of one’s birth, it is evident that, if yours be the 
only true religion, the country in which you were 


50 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


born, and in 'which you were early stuffed with that 
religion, is the only true country to be born in. Is 
not that a very bad God, then, who has men born in 
other countries in which they are sure to be early 
stuffed with other religions ? 

As to the old and hackneyed sophistry of the marks, 
of design, said to be visible in nature, I will simply 
say that no such marks of design exist. In all the 
phenomena of nature we see marks of adaptation, not 
of design; of adaptation brought about by the forces 
eternally present in matter; of the adaptation of every¬ 
thing to the cause which produces it, and to the effect 
which it produces. All men, all animals, all individ¬ 
ualized objects of every kind, are just such, and such 
only, as the conditions or causes from which they pro¬ 
ceed are adapted to produce. These conditions or 
causes, in their turn, are just such, and such only, as 
the more remote conditions or causes from which they 
proceeded were adapted to produce. And so of still 
more remote conditions, or causes, as we go backward 
forever around the great endless chain of causes and 
effects that constitutes the universe. No individual¬ 
ized object can possibly come into existence until all 
the conditions or causes are present that are necessary 
to its production. When, however, they are all present, 
it cannot possibly remain out of existence. As there 
can be no effect without a cause, so there can be no 
cause without an effect. Plants and animals, like all 
other individualized objects, result from certain com¬ 
binations of forces, conditions, and forms of matter, 
all of which, in their elements at least, have eternally 
existed in the universe. Plants and animals were 


THE CREATOR. 


Ol 


never made at all; and, though they are adapted to 
man’s sustenance, they were not produced with refer¬ 
ence to him or anything else. Most of them came 
into existence before he did, simply because the con¬ 
ditions necessary to their evolution and perpetuation 
preceded the conditions necessary to his evolution and 
perpetuation. Since they enter into the conditions 
necessary to his continued existence, they conse¬ 
quently had to precede him, as the cause precedes 
the effect To argue, however, that they were made 
with reference to him, because he needs them for his 
subsistence, is just as absurd as it would be to extend 
this argument to other things, and to contend, for in¬ 
stance, that man was made with reference to the louse, 
because it needs him for its subsistence. A theological 
louse would be very likely to thus extend youi argu¬ 
ment, for the benefit of its own race, which it would 
doubtless regard as the highest order of beings. 

Admitting, however, that marks of design do exist 
in nature, to which God, or to which set of gods, do 
those marks point as their author ? How many 
chances in a thousand, think you, would your gods 
have to-be thus pointed out? Besides this, if the 
beauty and perfection present in nature—if the adap¬ 
tation of cause to effect—prove the existence of- a God, 
of a great designer, do not the greater beauty and per¬ 
fection of God, the adaptation of himself as a greater 
cause to a greater effect, just as certainly prove the 
existence of a greater God, of a greater designer? 
Thus you see that by proving too much this argu¬ 
ment becomes worse than none at all. 

In this lecture I have purposely confined myself 




I 




52 DEITY ANALYZED. 

principally to the analysis of the general idea of the 
deity as equally applicable to all gods, and have proved 
this idea to be totally inconsistent with reason, science, 
and common sense. I have, also, proved that all sys¬ 
tems of religion, founded upon the existence of a per¬ 
sonal God, are necessarily pernicious in their influ¬ 
ences upon the minds, the consciences, and the charac¬ 
ters of men. In the remaining lectures of this course, 
I will devote my attention principally to the gods of 
the Bible, Jehovah and Jesus. 

And now, in conclusion, I challenge any champion 
of any of the gods to come forward and fairly meet 
any of my arguments. Convince me that I am in 
error, and that you do indeed have the truth on your 
side, and I will at once become a devoted worshiper 
of your gods, no matter which of the many gods they 
may be. You cannot convince me of these things, 
however, by merely heaping foul names and unjust 
persecutions upon me. In the name of your “ Lord ”— 
whoever that may be—you have long tried these things 
upon me, but in vain. The fact that you resort to 
such means at all simply proves the indefensible char¬ 
acter of your religion, and the degrading effect which 
it has had upon yourselves. I am still a sincere un¬ 
believer, and no amount of genuine “cussedness” on 
your part, displayed in your persecutions of me, can 
ever render me otherwise. I want proofs that will 
convince my reason. Have you none of these? I 
have no power to believe without them. And will 
your gods, indeed, burn me forever and forever, be¬ 
cause of my want of the power which they might give 
me, but do not ! Will they, indeed, thus burn me 


THE CREATOR. 


53 


* for exercising, to the best of my ability, the reason 
and the conscience which they themselves gave me? 
If they will burn me for these things, as you teach 
they certainly will, then to hell I am bound. Indeed, 
I would rather go to hell as a man, and in the com¬ 
pany of men, on my own merits, than to heaven as a 
sneak, and in the company of sneaks, on the merits of 
another. 


54 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


LECTURE SECOND. 

TIIE CREATOR— Continued. 

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
earth.” These first ten words of the Bible contain 
two assumptions and one assertion. The assumptions 
are a “God” and a “beginning;” the assertion is a 
creation ; and upon these assumptions and this asser¬ 
tion depend all the balance of the Bible, all the 
fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, and 
even the existence of God himself. 

Without any attempt to prove the correctness of his 
assumption, the unknown writer of the above extract 
simply assumes a God and a beginning, as things in 
which the people for whom he wrote already believed; 
and then proceeds, without any attempt at proof, to 
assert that, at the time of this assumed “beginning,” 
this assumed “God created the heaven and the earth.” 
The evidences, then, whatever they may have been, 
upon which the belief in a God and in a beginning 
was founded, being anterior to the Bible, could not, of 
course, have been derived from its teachings. Indeed, 
that belief, so far from being founded upon the Bible, 
constitutes the foundation upon which the Bible itself 
stands Take away that belief, and the Bible at once 
becomes a worthless bundle of waste paper. 




THE CREATOR. 


55 

But what evidences could the people of pre-Bible 
times have had upon which to found their belief? 
"V ou cannot claim that thej r saw him, or heard his 
voice, for the Bible itself, whose testimony you dare 
not dispute, positively declares that no man ever has 
seen or can see him, and that no man has ever heard 
his voice. Those pre-Bible men, therefore, could not 
have had anything upon which to found their belief 
except the various phenomena of nature. But we 
have these same phenomena before us to-dav. In 
what respect, then, were those primitive men better 
prepared than we now are to prove the existence of a 
God, and the fact of a beginning? If, from certain 
natural phenomena, which they did not underhand, 
they were able to prove these things, why cannot we, 
from the same phenomena, which we do understand, 
prove the same things? Did their extreme ignorance 
render them better qualified to establish the truth in 
regard to those things than our knowledge renders us? 
If not, why trust to their judgment rather than to 
our own ? As you well know, we utterly fail, with all 
our knowledge, to find, in the phenomena of nature, 
even the fainest trace of a God or a beginning. Is it 
reasonable, then, to take it for granted, as you do, that 
they were both actually found by the grossly ignorant 
men of pre-Bible times? In what way can ignorance 
aid men in the discovery of truth? 

The writer then goes on to give in detail the process 
of the creation which he asserts took place “In the 
beginning;” and on the truth of this pretended history 
of creation depends the existence of what you call the 
Creator. If there ever was any such creation, then, of 


66 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


necessity, there must have been some such Creator. 
If, on the other hand, there never was any such crea¬ 
tion, then, of equal necessity, there never could have 
been any such Creator. If the earth really was made 
all on a sudden, and all out of nothing, about 6,000 
years ago ; if it really was made three days before the 
sun, if it really is flat and stationary; if it really does 
rest on material foundations, if it really does consti¬ 
tute the entire universe; if the sun, the moon, and the 
stars really are mere appendages or ornaments of the 
earth ; if what we call the sky really is a solid struct¬ 
ure or firmament, placed like a vast inverted bowd 
over the earth ; if there really are vast bodies of water 
above this firmament, if there really are -windows 
in this firmament, if, through these windows, a body 
of water, over five miles deep all around the world, 
really did pour down from the upper side of this firma¬ 
ment ; if, to keep them from falling, the sun, the moon, 
and the stars really are u set" or stuck, like nails, 
into the under side of this firmament; if a God really 
does have a throne firmly founded on the upper side 
of this firmament, if all the stars really are so placed in 
this firmament as to be capable ol being shaken out of 
it, and made to come rattling down, like so many figs, 
upon the earth; if the waters which are above this 
firmament really are, as they certainly must be, above 
the sun, the moon, and the stars which are set into its 
under surface; if this firmament itself really is capa¬ 
ble of being rolled together, like a scroll, and taken 
away ; if light really did exist before there was anv- 
thing to emit light if there really were three perfect 
days before there was any sun to produce day, if all 


THE CREATOR. 


57 


the plants really were brought forth by the earth, 
before any rain had ever fallen, and before there was 
any sun to light the air and to warm the ground ; if 
these same plants, that thus grew up out of the 
ground, really were, at the same time, all manufact¬ 
ured, without growing at all, and without ever having 
been in the ground; if all the birds really were 
brought forth by the waters, at the same moment with 
the fish, and in the same manner; if, at the same 
time, these same birds really were manufactured like 
so many bricks, out of the ground ; if a serpent really 
did take a waik with a lady, if it really did converse 
with her in good Hebrew, and outreason her in argu¬ 
ment; if the man and the woman really were both 
made on the same day and in the same manner; if, at 
the same time, they really were made on different 
days, and in different manners; if the man really was 
the very last thing that was made, if, at the same 
time, he was made before the trees, the birds, and the 
beasts; if a slice of flesh, large enough to make a 
full-sized woman of, really was taken from the body 
of a sleeping man, without waking him, and without 
even making a sore place; if all these monstrous 
absurdities, and scores more like' them, really are 
absolutely true, then the existence of a Creator may 
be regarded as established. But which one of the 
many gods is to have the doubtful honor of having 
performed this creation ? What proofs have you that 
any one of your gods performed it? If you had been 
born to some other set of gods, would not you have 
been just as sure that some one of them performed it? 

Of necessity, the Creator must have existed before 


68 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the creation. But for how long a time? If for a 
finite period only, then, of necessity, he himself had 
had only a finite existence; and, by going back be¬ 
yond that finite period, we find space and duration 
existing without any God at all, unless we assume 
that there was an older God than the Creator. If, on 
the other hand, the Creator .existed at an infinite dis¬ 
tance in duration beyond the point at which the crea¬ 
tion is assumed to have taken place, then, of necessity, 
the period which lay between himself and the creative 
point was absolutely incapable of ever having an end, 
or of ever growing any less. Of course, then, it never 
did have an end ; the creative point was never reached ; 
and the creation was never performed at all. 

I defy any escape from these conclusions. The 
period in question could not possibly have had an 
end, at the creative point, without having had a be¬ 
ginning somewhere beyond that point A period of 
time or duration is like a rope. If it has an end in 
the one direction it is .bound to have an end, or rather 
a beginning, in the other direction also. It is bound 
to be just as long, when measured in the one direction, 
as it is when measured in the other. It cannot possi¬ 
bly be finite in the one direction and infinite in the 
other. 

We are evidently bound, however, to place the Cre¬ 
ator at either a finite or an infinite distance in dura¬ 
tion beyond the point afr which we place the creation. 
In the one case, however, as I have iust shown, we 
make him, of necessity, a finite being, and involve the 
additional necessity of an infinite series of older gods. 
In the other case we render him, of equal necessity, 


THE CREATOR. 


59 


utterly incapable of ever having reached the creative 
point, and, consequently, utterly incapable of ever 
having performed the creation at all. On this hypoth¬ 
esis the universe itself is bound to be eternal in its 
duration and self-sustaining in its powers. We are 
forced, therefore, as you see, either to accept a finite 
Creator, with an infinite series of older gods, or to do 
without any Creator at all. And now, which horn of 
this dilemma shall we take ? 

Leaving theologians, however, to bring the Creator 
up in the best way they can, from tl e unreachable 
depths of infinity to the creative point—to the end of 
what they themselves, reluctantly enough, admit to 
have been, of necessity, an utterly endless, an abso¬ 
lutely undiminishable period, let us see what be does 
after they get him there. 

Of necessity, the creation, if it ever occurred, must 
have consisted either in the bringing of matter itself 
from absolute nonentity into existence, or simply in 
the forming of individualized objects from matter 
which had eternally existed. On the former of the.se 
two hypotheses, however, what have we with which 
to begin the work of creation ? Since matter in every 
form is now, of necessity, totally absent, and since the 
total absence of matter constitutes a perfect vacuum, 
we have, as I fully proved in my last lecture, both God 
and space reduced, of necessity, to one and the same 
infinite, motionless, and necessarily powerless, perfect 
vacuum, from which nothing at all can ever proceed. 
Nothing can ever give forth that which itself does not 
contain, and the total absence of a thing can never 
become the thing itself. Empty space, then, which is 


60 


DEITY ANALYZED, 


the total absence of matter, could never have given 
forth matter, and could itself never have changed into 
matter. These are self-evident truths. 

From all this it is evident that all the matter of the 
universe must, of necessity, have been eternally pres¬ 
ent in the Creator, just as it is present in him now. 
As yet, however, there was nothing in existence ex¬ 
cept the Creator himself. This fact, I presume, the 
theologians will not care to deny. Of necessity, then, 
the entire material of the universe thus eternally pres¬ 
ent in him must have constituted an element in the 
composition of the Creator himself; and since he was, 
of necessity, eternally present in space, just as he is 
present in it now, it is evident that this material por¬ 
tion of himself—the entire matter of the universe— 
must, of equal necessity, have been eternally present 
in space, just as it is present in it now. 

Butin what condition was matter as it thus originally 
existed in God and in space? Eager to retain some 
apparent use for the God upon whose assumed ex¬ 
istence their unearned bread and butter depend, theo¬ 
logians, when forced to admit, as they now are, that 
matter is necessarily uncreated and eternal, still con¬ 
tend, as might be expected, that it originally existed 
in a state of chaos, spread like a vapor throughout in¬ 
finite space. Having thus assumed this state of chaos 
as the original condition of matter, they proceed to 
argue in a very unctious manner that a God—their 
pwn God, of course—was necessary to bring this mat¬ 
ter out of its condition of chaos into its present condi¬ 
tion of order and of beauty. But how much is their 
argument worth, founded as it is upon a pure and un- 


01 


. THE CREATOR. 

warrantable assumption? We do not have a particle 
of proof that any more matter ever existed, at any one 
time, in a state of chaos than exists in that state at the 
present time. On the other hand, as I shall fully show 
in a future course of lectures, we do have abundance of 
proof that, as a whole, the universe could never have 
been otherwise than it now is. 

Suppose, however, that all the matter of the uni¬ 
verse was originally in a state of chaos. As I hnve 
already shown, it necessarily constituted an element 
in the composition of the Creator himself. It is evi¬ 
dent, then, that when he reduced it from this state of 
chaos into the form of worlds, of plants, of men. etc., 
he necessarily made a complete change in his own 
constitution. Besides this, since every motion is an 
effect, and since every effect must have a cause, what 
was it that caused the Creator, after an absolute eter¬ 
nity of total inaction, to move in the work or creation ; 
in the work of changing the condition of space, of 
matter, and of himself? You may reply that his own 
will caused him thus to move. But had he never till 
then possessed a will? If lie had not. how came l e 
by one just at that particular time? And if he had, 
why did he not move sooner? You may reply that 
his will did not act sooner. But what is a will that 
does not act? Can there be any such tiling? Is not 
the will itself a mere action of the mind, or rather, as 
a nart of the mind, is it not a mere action of the brain? 

4 ' 

Can it exist, then, without action, any more than light 
or sound can exist without motion ? Besides this, ad¬ 
mitting that the will is something that does itself act, 
is not its action an effect ? And is not this effect bound 


&2 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


to have a cause? What was it, then, that acted upon 
the Creator’s will to cause it to act at that particular 
moment, when it had never so acted before ? Had 
that cause existed sooner, would not the Creator’s will 
have been bound to act sooner? What was it, then, 
that caused that cause to act just when it did? And 
so of an infinite series of more remote causes. What 
caused each one of them to act just when it did? 

Leaving theologians, however, to arouse the Creator 
to action in the best way they can, after he had en¬ 
tirely lived out—completely ended—an absolutely end¬ 
less period of duration in total inaction, let us see how 
he proceeds to work after he is thus aroused. 

We now assume all the matter of the universe to be 
spread, like a motionless vapor, throughout infinite 
space, and also, of necessity, throughout the infinite 
extent of God himself, who is necessarily coextensive 
with space, if not identical with it. In order to col¬ 
lect this chaotic matter into the form of worlds, of 

plants, of men, etc., the Creator must, of necessitv, 

• •» ^ 

give it motion. This he can do only by bringing to 
bear upon it what we call force, of which there are 
only two kinds—mechanical force and the force of at¬ 
traction. Of necessity, then, he must either mechani¬ 
cally scrape together particles of chaotic matter out of 
himself, and out of infinite space, mould them into 
the forms of worlds, of plants, of men, etc., and toss 
them from him just as a boy forms and throws snow¬ 
balls, or else he must infuse into every particle of mat¬ 
ter itself a certain property which we call attraction, 
and which will cause the particles themselves to mu- 


THK CREATOR. 


68 


tually approach one another, and to finally unite in 
such a manner as to form worlds, plants, men, etc. 

And now, which one of these two methods of crea¬ 
tion, or rather of formation, shall we have the Creator 
employ? The Bible has him use the former, or me¬ 
chanical method. This method, however, involves 
several necessary conditions which are quite embar¬ 
rassing to theologians. As a matter of absolute ne¬ 
cessity, it requires the Creator to have hands with 
which to scrape together and mould into form the cha¬ 
otic matter upon which he is operating. In order to 
have hands he must, also, of equal necessity, have a 
body to support the hands. The moment we give 
him a body, however, we also give him definite limits, 
and render him, of necessity, a finite being; and, as I 
have elsewhere shown, such a being, so far from being 
able to occupy the entirety of infinite space and to 
work throughout it all, could never, in all the ages of 
eternity, reach an end of space even in one single di¬ 
rection. Besides this, a body capable of acting me¬ 
chanically upon matter must, of necessity, be itself 
composed of matter. Here, then, in the body of the 
Creator we have a quantity of matter which is not in 
a chaotic condition. Some older God, therefore, must 
iiave scraped it together from a state of chaos and 
formed it into the Creator’s body. But in or Jer to do 
this that older God had to have a body. This in¬ 
volves the necessity of a still older God, and so on 
back through an infinite series of Gods. 

Leaving theologians, however, to furnish the Creator 
in the best way they can with such a body as he must 
have, in order to act mechanically upon matter, let us 


64 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


see him at work after he is thus furnished. As we 
now behold him he is simply a huge monster in the 
shape of a man, without anything to stand upon, plung¬ 
ing about in space and snatching at particles of cha¬ 
otic matter, just as a boy might snatch at flakes of falling 
snow. No wonder that he needed rest after six days of 
such work, especially as this was the first exercise of any 
kind that he had ever taken. It is a well-known fact, 
however, that without friction with, or resistance from, 
something else of a material nature, noobjeet, whether 
animate or inanimate, can possibly move or be moved 
in a mechanical manner from one place to another. In 
order, therefore, that he may move about mechanically 
from place to place, as he certainly must, while per¬ 
forming the work of creation, it is absolutely neces¬ 
sary that the Creator’s body produce friction with, or 
meet resistance from, some other body more stable 
than itself. But what other body is there while all is 
yet chaos, and who formed that body? Besides this, 
it is also a well-known fact that there can be no action, 
of any kind, mechanical or otherwise, in any direction, 
without an exactly equal amount of reaction, of the 
same kind, in the opposite direction. While the 
Creator, therefore, is acting upon chaotic matter in one 
direction, he is bound to react with an exactly equal 
force upon something else in the opposite direction. 
But what is that something else, and who made it? 
Thus we see that the Bible method of creation—that 
by mechanical means—becomes, upon a fair analysis, 
so supremely ridiculous and so manifestly impossible, 
that before adopting it we would better examine the 
other method—that of having God infuse into chaotic 


THE CREATOR. 


65 


matter itself such properties as will cause its atoms to 
mutually attract one another, and to finally enter into 
the form of worlds, of plants, of men, etc. 

This latter method of creation, however, is nothing 
more nor less than the development theory which is 
now advocated, by all Infidel scientists, as the only 
theory that will bear the test of reason, science, and 
common sense. This is the very theory of which all 
religionists stand in mortal fear as the annihilator of 
their gods. The only difference between ourselves 
and the Infidel scientists is that they, having all the 
necessary forces eternally existing in matter itself, 
have no use for a God; while we, simply that we may 
thus make a use for one, assume that all these forces 
originally existed in a God. and were infused by him 
into matter which previously possessed no such forces 
or properties. 

When we come to analyze matter, however, we find 
that even in its chaotic condition it possesses certain 
essential properties—properties without which it could 
not exist at all—and that among these are the very 
forces which, in the hope of preserving our God, we 
assume that he had infused into matter. We thus 
learn that all the forces by which the forms of worlds, 
of plants, of men, etc., are produced, must, of neces¬ 
sity, have been eternally present in matter just as they 
are present in it now. Of equal necessity, the eternal 
presence of these formative forces in matter must have 
always rendered it utterly impossible for the material 
of the universe to be, all at any one time, in a state Oi 
chaos, or for the universe, as a whole, to be otherwise 
than it now is. We learn that these forces, like the 


66 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


properties of strength, hardness, brittleness, etc., from 
their very nature are utterly incapable of existing at 
all, except in connection with matter. If, then, these 
forces ever existed at all in the Creator, they must, of 
necessity, have existed in his material part—in the 
matter which, as I have already shown, must, of ne¬ 
cessity, have always been as it is now, spread through¬ 
out his own infinite extent. But this is the very mat¬ 
ter of which the universe is composed, and these are 
the very forces which have fashioned or developed 
matter into all the infinitude of forms in which we 
now find it. This matter, then, and these forces, hav¬ 
ing thus of necessity eternally existed in connection 
with each other, render the universe, of equal neces¬ 
sity, uncreated and self-sustaining. Thi3 leaves us, 
like the Infidel scientists, without any possible use for 
a God. 

Besides all this, the Bible positively declares that 
the entire work of creation was completed within the 
space of six days from the beginning. This, we all 
know, could never have been accomplished by the 
forces inherent in matter. These forces never work 
so rapidly. We are compelled, therefore, either to 
abandon our Creator entirely, or else, like the Bible, 
have the creation performed by mechanical means. 

I am aware, however, that many hard-pressed theo¬ 
logians attempt to evade the difficulty involved in the 
shortness of the time said to have been occupied in 
the work of creation, by unblushingly assuming that 
the six days mentioned in the Bible were not six davs 
at all—that they were six thousand years, six geologi¬ 
cal epochs, or six long and indefinite periods. By 


THE CREATOR. 


67 


this subterfuge, however, these unfortunate and un¬ 
scrupulous theologians either flatly contradict the 
most positive assertions of the Bible, or reduce them 
to the worst of nonsense ; and, what is still worse, they 
involve themselves in difficulties tenfold greater than 
is the one from which they thus escape. Some of 
these contradictions and difficulties I will now proceed 
to notice. 

In the first place, then, the Bible positively declares 
that the six periods of creation were six days, and we 
have no more reason to believe that this one particular 
declaration is either false or figurative than we have 
to believe the same in regard to the whole story. If, 
as used in this story, the word day may be made to 
mean a thousand years, a geological epoch, or a long 
and indefinite period, why may not the word created 
just as reasonably be made to mean fizzled, and the 
word God to mean the Great Myth, the Great Giascutis, 
or the Great Jumping Jingo? So of all the other 
words in the story; why may not each of them be 
made to convey a meaning entirely different from the 
one which it is ordinarily used to express, and which, 
as used in this story, it certainly does express? If 
this reckless and unauthorized changingof the evident 
meaning of words be once begun, where is it to stop? 

When the writer declared that “in six days the 
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in 
them is, and rested the seventh day,” he made a plain, 
straightforward statement; and, of necessity, that 
statement is either true or false. The language cannot 
be figurative. The story professes to be a concise 
statement of actual facts, and we all know that in such 


68 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


a statement, the using of figurative language, espe¬ 
cially in the form of false names, false dates, and 
false numbers, would be just as improper, just as 
impossible, in fact, as would be similar language, 
similar false names, false dates, and false numbers, 
in the minutes of a meeting, in a promissory note, 
or in a bill of goods. Figurative language is always 
used to strengthen or to beautify the real meaning 
of the author, never to conceal or to change that 
meaning. Language which deceives is false, not 
figurative. If, then, the language in question be not 
literally true, it must, of necessity, be literally false, 
since, in that case, it certainly has deceived nearly all 
who ever read it. Among the parties thus deceived 
by it were the companions of the writer himself. The 
Hebrews always did understand it to mean six literal 
days. Indeed, it is only since the demonstrated truths 
of science have been troubling theologians that these 
gentlemen ^have thought of giving to this language 
any other than a literal meaning. Since all the other 
names contained in the story of creation are used in 
exactly the same manner as is the word day, they are 
bound to be all figurative if it is; and this evidently 
reduces the whole story to a mere fable. But let us 
see what the writer himself has to say on the subject. 
He certainly ought to know what meaning he intends 
to express by his own language. 

“ And God called the light day, and the darkness 
he called night: and the evening and the morning 
were the first day.” From this we learn that a day of 
creation, like a day of our own time, contained an 
evening and a morning, that it consisted of light, and 


THE CREATOR. 


69 


that it was the opposite of night or darkness. How 
can theologians have the face to assert that this lan¬ 
guage describes a thousand years, a geological epoch, 
or a long and indefinite period? In Ex. xxi, 9-11, 
we read : “ Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy 
work. For in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the 
seventh day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath 
day and hallowed it.” In Ex. xxxi, 17, this is re¬ 
peated as follows: “ It [the Sabbath] is a sign between 
me and the children of Israel forever ; for in six days 
the Lord made heaven and earth, and, on the seventh 
day, he rested and was refreshed.” From all of this, 
it is evident that the six days during which God 
labored, and the one day on which he rested, were ex¬ 
actly the same kind of days as were the six days during 
which the Hebrews were required to labor, and the 
one day on which they were required to rest. And 
will our hard-faced theological friends, who for obvi¬ 
ous reasons wish to lengthen the time said to have 
been occupied in the creation, have the effrontery to con¬ 
tend that the Hebrews were required to labor during six 
thousand years, six geological epochs, or six long and 
indefinite periods, and then to rest during one of these 
same periods? Absurd as this view is, they are bound 
to contend for it, or else abandon their interpretation 
of the word day as used in the story of creation. 

Had some of these theologians, so wise in their own 
conceit, been present, they would doubtless have in¬ 
formed Moses that he did not know what he was talk^ 
ing about—that when he said day, he meant a geologi¬ 
cal epoch ; and that when he said night, he meant an 


70 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


ungeological epoch. As corrected by these theologians, 
the language would have been substantially as fob 
lows: “ And God called the light a geological epoch, 

and the darkness he called an ungeological epoch, and 
the evening and the morning were the first geological 
epoch.” “ Six geological epochs shalt thou labor and 
do all thy work. . . . For in six geological epochs 

the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that 
in them is, and rested the seventh geological epoch ; 
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath geological 
epoch and hallowed it.” “Remember the Sabbath 
geological epoch to keep it holy,” etc. What a great 
improvement this would have been upon the language 
as it now stands I 

Every intelligent person knows that a serious and 
sensible passage, containing figurative language, is 
never rendered ridiculous by substituting in it the 
literal for the figurative language. Such a substitu¬ 
tion may diminish the beauty of the passage, but can 
never change or destroy the sense. The fact, there¬ 
fore, that the passages in question do become ridiculous 
when for the word day any other term is substituted, 
is proof positive that this word, as employed in these 
passages, is not used in a figurative sense. In other 
words, it proves that the Bible certainly does teach six 
literal days as the time within which the entire crea¬ 
tion was performed. It is evident, then, that in order 
to have the creation completed in so short a time, we 
must have God himself perform it by direct mechan¬ 
ical means, and not have it performed by the slow ac¬ 
tion of physical forces. Indeed, since we are bound 
to resort to miracle, in order to account for a special 


THE CREATOR. 


71 


creation at all, we may just as well have the greatest 
miracle possible, by having the work performed in the 
shortest possible time. On the miracle hypothesis we 
may just as well have the work performed in six days, 
six minutes, or even six seconds, as to have it per¬ 
formed in six geological epochs. Besides this, “on 
the seventh day ” God “ rested and was refreshed.” 
This he could not possibly have done had he not been 
exhausted, and the fact that at the close of the six 
davs of creation he was exhausted and needed rest 
and refreshment is proof positive that he in person 
had been hard at work. 

Besides all this, it is a well-established truth that the 
physical forces have no existence except in action. 
If, then, these forces existed at all before the crea¬ 
tion, they must have been in action previous to that 
event If, however, they had been thus previously in 
action, and if the tendency of their action was to pro¬ 
duce the creation, then it is evident that the creation 
would have been produced sooner than it was. This 
is equally true no matter at what point in the infinite 
past we place the creation—whether at a point six 
thousand years, or at one six thousand million mill¬ 
ions of ages ago. If, then, these forces existed previ¬ 
ous to the creation, their action could not have tended 
to produce that grand effect If, however, they did 
not have any previous existence, then, of necessity, 
they themselves must have been among the things 
created on that wonderful occasion, and hence, could 
not have been the producers of that mighty work. In 
no possible view of the case, therefore, could they 
have produced our special creation. Of necessity, the 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


creation, as an effect, must have begun to result the 
very moment that the cause which produced it began 
to act Whatever that cause may have been, there¬ 
fore, it could never have been in operation until the 
very moment in which the creation was begun. Be¬ 
sides all this, it is a well-known truth that the physi¬ 
cal forces have never ceased to act at the end of any 
six days, and have never needed to rest and be re¬ 
freshed. The power that produced the creation, how¬ 
ever, did cease to act, did rest, and was refreshed, at 
the end of the six days of creation. In addition to 
all of this, we know that man was never made in the 
image of any of the physical forces; that these forces 
never made a full-grown man in one day ; that they 
never made a full-grown man of mud, and then 
breathed life into him afterwards; that thev never 
took a rib from the side of a man, and instantly made 
a woman of it; that they never made the earth flat 
and stationary; that they never made the sky solid, 
and set the sun, the moon, and the stars into the un¬ 
der side of it to keep them from falling; and finally, 
we know that these forces never carried on conversa¬ 
tion with one another in regard to their work. The 
Bible, then, which declares that all these things were 
done, certainly means to teach that God, by his own 
direct, personal power, performed the entire w r ork of 
creation. 

Let us, however, for a moment, suppose that the six 
days of creation were, in reality, six geological epochs. 
According to the teachings of geology we must give to 
each of these epochs some hundreds of thousands, if 
not millions, of years. In granting these immense 


THE CREATOR. 


73 


epochs, we do, indeed, give the Creator time in which 
to perform the creation by means of the physical 
forces which we assume that he infused into matter. 
We meet, however, with several other serious difficul¬ 
ties. In the first place, when we come to use the least 
particle of reason on the subject, we find ourselves 
totally unable to conceive how these forces, which, as 
I have already shown, are essential properties of mat¬ 
ter, and of that alone, could ever have been absent 
from it, and present in God, who, as all theologians 
teach, is a pure spirit, and who, as such, cannot pos¬ 
sess any of the properties of matter. We find it 
much easier to conceive that these forces have been 
eternally present in matter itself, ol which they are 
essential properties. To have them thus eternally 
present in matter, however, places all the means of 
creation at our disposal, and leaves us no use at all for 
a God. 

Besides this, we know that from their very nature 
the forces in question are universal in their action, and 
that, consequently, they could not have been in oper¬ 
ation here on earth, during three geological epochs, 
before they came into operation anywhere else. In 
deed, we know that their operation here, as we behold 
it, depends upon their cooperation in the sun, and in 
all other masses of matter. Besides this, why should 
these forces have been so much longer in forming the 
earth—comparatively a mere atom—than they were in 
forming all the balance of the universe ? And why 
should they have formed the earth first, and then, as 
a mere appendage, have fitted the universe to it after¬ 
wards ? Do the physical forces act in this way ? 


74 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


During the first three days of creation—the primary, 
the secondary, and the tertiary epochs—the Bible has 
no sun, no source of light in existence. Notwith¬ 
standing this fact, however, it has the earth enjoying 
light—enjoying day just as well without a sun, or any 
other source of light, as with one. Finally, it has the 
sun made, not to produce day, which for almost count¬ 
less ages had already existed, but simply to divide the 
day from the night 

From the very beginning the Bible has, upon the 
earth, an abundance of w r ater. During the second 
day, or secondary epoch, it also has an equal abun¬ 
dance placed above the earth on the upper side of a 
solid structure, called the firmament, into the under 
side of which, and, consequently, below this body of 
water, it has the sun, the moon, and the stars, set or 
stuck to keep them from falling. Notwithstanding 
this great abundance of water, however, so conven¬ 
iently situated right over the earth, and with windows 
in the firmament through which, at any moment, it 
might have been made to fall, the Bible does not have 
a drop of rain fall upon the earth during the almost 
countless ages of the first three geological epochs. 
This must have been quite a long dry spell, or rather, 
it would have been had there been any sun to dry the 
ground. It is well, perhaps, that there was no sun. 
But, without the agency of the sun, how are we to 
have these vast bodies of water elevated to the upper 
side of that firmament, to their position above the 
places in which the sun, the moon, and the stars were 
set or stuck in the quaternary epoch untold ages after- 
wards? We have now given God millions of years 


THE CREATOR. 


75 


in which to perform all his works by means of the 
laws of nature, and we are now supposing him to per¬ 
form them by these means alone. It will not do, 
therefore, in the case of the wonderful hydraulic 
achievement in question, to have him resort to the 
miraculous interposition of his own direct, personal 
power. How, then, were those waters elevated to 
their position above the stars? 

Besides all this, the Bible declares that God made 
“every plant of the field before it was in the earth, 
and every herb of the field before it grew I ” If those 
plants and herbs had been produced by the laws of 
nature, would they not havt had to be in the earth, 
and would they not have had to grow? Would they 
not, also, have required both rain and sun, neither of 
which had yet been created ? Do not all these things, . 
then, like the manufacture of a man from a pile of 
dirt, and of a woman from a bone, prove that God 
was performing the creation by manual labor, and not 
by nature’s laws? 

We thus see that so far from having gained any¬ 
thing by changing the days of creation into geological 
epochs, our hard-faced theologians have thereby 
greatly increased the absurdity of the whole story, by 
thus making the earth stand motionless, rainless, 
moonless, sunless, and starless—the only body in the 
universe, and yet blessed with day and night, and 
clothed with verdure, for countless ages instead of 
for only three days. And now, having fully demon¬ 
strated that the Bible certainly means to teach a me 
chanical creation, performed by the direct power of 


76 DEITY ANALYZED. 

God, within the space of six literal days, I will pro¬ 
ceed to examine the creation as thus described. 

In the first place, I wish to call your attention to 
the fact that there are in the Bible two entirely dis¬ 
tinct accounts of creation. One of these accounts oc¬ 
cupies the entire first chapter, and the first three verses 
of the second chapter of Genesis. The other begins 
at the fourth verse, and occupies the balance of the 
second chapter. Between these two accounts, which 
were evidently written at different times, and by dif¬ 
ferent authors, there are several grave discrepancies. 
To some of these I will now briefly call your atten¬ 
tion. 

The first of these accounts has the creation occupy 
six days; has the plants grow; has the trees made at 
the same time with the plants and herbs, has the 
fowls all brought forth by the waters the same as the 
fish; and has the man and the woman made at the 
same time, in the same manner, and at the very close 
of the creation. The other account has the creation 
occupy only one day; has the plants manufactured; 
ha§ the plants and herbs made at one time, and the 
trees at another, has the fowls manufactured out of 
the ground; has the man made before the trees, the 
birds, and the beasts; and has the woman made long 
after the man, and in a very different manner. And 
now, I defy any theologian to make these two ac¬ 
counts harmonize. 

I have already noticed the first verse of the Bible, 
in which a God and a beginning are assumed, and a 
creation asserted. We next read that “the earth was 
without form and void.” Since the earth was then, as 


THE CREATOR. 


77 


it is now, a material body sufficiently solid to sustain 
the waters of the great deep, it could not have been, 
as the Bible says it was, “without form.” 

We next read that God said, “Let there be light;” 
and that, in consequence of his having said this, “ there 
was light.” But who knows that he ever said this? 
Theologians claim that his creative acts stand regis¬ 
tered in his works. Not so, however, with his crea¬ 
tive words. To whom, then, did he speak those words, 
in what language did he speak them, and why did he 
speak them at all? If he was all alone, could the * 
speaking of certain words have helped him any in his 
works? Could there have been any power in those 
words when he himself possessed all the power there 
was? Can it be that, like a juggler, he was merely 
repeating useless mummeries ? If so, was he not act¬ 
ing very foolishly, seeing that no one was present to 
be either amused or deceived by such mummeries? 
His words could not possibly have been of any ser¬ 
vice to himself. If, then, they were really necessary 
at all, there must, of necessity, have been some other 
person present to hear and to act upon them. Indeed, 
the first clause of the passage in question is a com¬ 
mand to some one to produce light. The second is a 
declaration that the command was promptly executed. 
Who, then, was it that received and executed that 
command ? There must have been a plurality of gods 
present on that occasion. Indeed, the Hebrew Elohim, 
which is here translated God, is in the plural number, 
and signifies not a single God, but a corporation or 
congress of gods. Of these gods—these members of 
the Elohim—there were at least three, that number 


78 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


having afterwards appeared to Abraham, all at one 
time, and all as entirely distinct persons. Modern 
trinitarians, however, combine these three distinct per¬ 
sons into one monstrous God, with three heads, and 
have the language in question spoken by one of these 
1 leads to the other two. 

We next read that “God saw the light that it was 
good.” And had he never before seen light? Cer¬ 
tainly not. How could he ever have seen it when 
there had never been any to see? Had it not been a 
new thing to him he would not have needed to exam¬ 
ine it, as he did on this occasion, before pronouncing 
it good. It was undoubtedly as new to him as was 
man, or anything else created on that occasion. 

“ And God divided the light from the darkness.” 
We now know that darkness is merely the absence of 
light. We also know that nothing, light not excepted, 
can ever be mixed—can ever occupy the same space 
at the same time, with its own absence. Of necessity, 
light and darkness are each other’s opposites. Where 
the one is, the other cannot be. From their very na¬ 
ture they must always have been separate just as they 
are now. How, then, could God have “divided the 
light from the darkness,” when they were already es¬ 
sentially as much divided as they now are, and as 
much as they possibly could be? As reasonably 
might it be said that north and south, east and west, 
up and down, sound and silence, or any other pair of 
essential opposites, hnd once been intermingled, and 
that God had divided them. 

We now know that light moves, in straight lines, 
with inconceivable velocity, and that it cannot pos- 


THE CREATOR. 


79 

sibly exist, even for an instant, except while thus in 
motion. Indeed, we now know that light is motion 
and nothing else. Destroy the motion and you utterly 
annihilate the light The ancient pagans, however, of 
whom the author of Genesis was evidently one, sup¬ 
posed that light and darkness were two very rare sub¬ 
stances, or gaseous bodies, of different colors, which 
might exist either with motion or without it, and either 
separate or in combination with each other. Those 
pagans supposed that these two substances bad once 
existed in a state of chaos, sadly intermixed with each 
other, and that God, who stood for any power, force, 
or cause which they did not understand, had separated 
them into two distinct masses or clouds, the one of 
which then constituted day, the other night. These 
two unlike masses or clouds were supposed to be en¬ 
tirely independent of the sun, or of any other material 
body. From this standpoint of gross pagan ignorance, 
therefore, there was nothing absurd in having day and 
night make three or four trips, as the Bible says 
they did, by themselves around the world, or rather, 
across its face, before the creation of the sun, or of 
any other source of light Until quite recently this 
was, also, the doctrine of the entire Christian church. 
It is still the doctrine of the great body of that church 
Indeed, I do not understand how any true Christian 
can reject a doctrine so plainly taught in the Bible. 
In the Douay, or Catholic, Bible, we find a note on the 
passage in question which says that “God created on 
the first day light, which being moved from east to west, 
by its rising and setting, made morning and evening.” 

As I have already shown, the Bible does not have 


80 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the sun made to produce day, but simply to divide the 
already existing day from the already existing night. 
We now know, however, that the sun is the only source 
or cause of day, and that, consequently, there never 
could have been three perfect days, as the Bible says 
there were, before the creation of the sun. From the 
very nature of light, it cannot possibly exist without 
a source or cause. It is evident, then, that it never 
did exist without a source, and never did pass like a 
white body of vapor two or three times around the 
earth, or across her face. As reasonably might we 
assume that sound and silence had once been inter¬ 
mingled, and that God had divided them and made 
them, like two unlike but invisible clouds or masses, 
pass three or four times around the earth before the 
creation of anything capable of producing sound. 

Besides all this, we know that without the sun the 
earth could not, for three whole geological epochs, or 
even for three whole days, revolve in her orbit, or 
perform any of her other planetary functions. The 
great commentator, Dr. Clarke, sees and admits this 
fact. He also admits that day could not have existed 
before there was any sun. He, therefore, assumes 
that the author of Genesis did not mean what he said 
when he used the words light and day. Instead, how¬ 
ever, of assuming, as do many other theologians whom 
we have noticed, that the word day as here used 
means a thousand years, a geological epoch, or a long 
and indefinite period, the learned doctor makes the 
rather novel assumption that it means caloric or latent 
heat This is quite a different construction from that 
put upon the same word by the other assumptionists. 


THE CREATOR. 


81 


To all th is I will say that if the author of Genesis 
had meant caloric, or latent heat, he would doubtless 
have used one of these words, and not the w r ord light, 
or day, to express that meaning. It is not at all prob¬ 
able, however, that he had any idea of the existence 
of any such thing as caloric, or latent heat; and even 
if he had, even if he meant caloric or latent heat, how 
could it have produced three days with evenings and 
mornings ( 

If Dr. Clarke is correct, then, we should read, “ And 
God said, Let there be caloric or latent heat, and there 
was caloric or latent heat. And God divided the 
caloric or latent heat from the darkness. And the 
caloric or latent heat he called day, and the darkness 
he called night; and the evening and the morning 
were the first caloric or latent heat” “Six calorics 
or latent heats shalt thou labor and do all thy work. 

. . . For in six calorics or latent heats, the Lord 

made heaven and earth, the sea,” etc. To what mon¬ 
strous absurdities are even the greatest theologians 
driven in their desperate, but utterly vain, attempts to 
prop upas true history the supremely ridiculous story of 
a beginning and of a special creation—this story which 
is fully proved to be utterly false, by its coming into 
direct conflict, at every point, with some of the demon¬ 
strated truths of science. 

We next read, “ And God said, Let there be a firma¬ 
ment in the midst of the water, and let it divide the 
waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, 
and divided the waters which were under the firmament 
from the waters which were above the firmament, and 
it was so. And God called the firmament heaven.” 


82 


DF.TTY ANALYZED. 


Having to some extent already noticed this firmament, 
I shall give it but a very brief notice now. The word 
comes from the Latin firmamentum , which means a 
solid structure used as a foundation, a support, etc.— 
something to render firm whatever rests upon it The 
corresponding Hebrew word, rakia , has the same mean¬ 
ing, combined with the idea of expansion. Every 
person who is well posted in Latin and Hebrew knows 
that I am correct in these statements, and any of you 
may satisfy yourselves of the same fact by consulting 
your own standard Bible Dictionaries. 

Until about three hundred years ago, the belief was 
almost universal that the sky was a solid concavo- 
convex structure, placed like a vast inverted bowl 
over the earth, or, like a hollow sphere, all around it 
This structure was called the rakia , the firmamentum, 
the crystalline, etc. The belief was also equally gen¬ 
eral that, to keep them from falling, the heavenly 
bodies, all at an equal distance from the earth, were 
set or stuck like nails into the under or concave surface 
of this structure; while firmly founded on its upper 
or convex surface were the thrones and the dwelling- 
places of the gods. In addition to these things, there 
were believed to be, also, on the upper side of this 
structure, vast bodies of water, which, at the pleasure 
of the gods, could be made to pour d~>wn upon the 
earth through windows or openings made for that pur¬ 
pose. When reduced to a systematic form, these vari¬ 
ous ideas, all of which have now been demonstrated 
to be erroneous, constituted substantially what was 
known as the Ptolemaic or Geocentric System of As¬ 
tronomy. To this system the papal seal of infallibility 


THK CRICATOK. 


88 


was given, thus rendering a belief in it binding upon 
the consciences of the whole Christian church, and 
absolutely necessary to salvation. Whether this seal 
has ever been removed or not, I have, as yet, been un¬ 
able to learn. The seal, however, makes no differ¬ 
ence. The Bible certainly teaches this system, and 
this fact renders a belief in it binding upon every true 
Ch ristian. 

Claiming to write from the Hebrew scriptures, 
Josephus says that God placed a firmament or crystal¬ 
line around the earth, “and put it together in a man¬ 
ner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving 
moisture and rain and for affording the advantage of 
dews.” Mark the expression, “put it together,” etc. 
Such language could be used only in speaking of the 
several parts of a material structure. Upon this idea 
of a solid sky or firmament, placed over a flat and sta¬ 
tionary earth, is founded the language which I have 
quoted from the Bible. We now know, however, 
that no such firmament or solid sky ever existed. 
Knowing this fact, we cannot help knowing that the 
Bible story of creation, which makes this imaginary 
firmament absolutely necessary to the universe, is 
nothing more than a baseless, if not a pernicious, fabri¬ 
cation. 

For want of time, I shall be obliged to omit any 
further notice of the creation of the plants, the birds, 
the beasts, etc., and devote the balance of this lecture 
to a discussion of the creation of man. 

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness. ... So God created man in 
his own image, in the image of God created he him; 


84 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


male and female created lie them. . . . And the 

Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man 
became a living soul.” In the first of these passages 
we again have proof that there were more Gods than 
one engaged in the creation. We must either admit 
this to be a fact, or charge God with having on that 
occasion, like a common juggler, frequently repeated 
meaningless mummeries—though no one was present 
to hear them—and then with having afterwards pub¬ 
lished to the world this extremely silly proceeding. 
In explanation of the language here used, the Douav 
Bible contains a note which says: ‘ God speaketk 
here in the plural number to insinuate the plurality 
of persons in the Deity.” This note, which is sub¬ 
stantially indorsed by nearly all Christendom, admits 
all that I claim—that God, or Deity, like the corre¬ 
sponding Hebrew Elohim, is the name, not of one per¬ 
son, but of a corporate body or congress, composed of 
at least three persons. 

These several persons or members of the Deity are 
represented in the Bible as being entirely distinct in¬ 
dividuals, who had to make their thoughts known to 
one another by means of words, as in the case before us, 
and who sometimes went on entirely separate journeys, 
as we learn from the 18th chapter of Genesis. From 
the fact that man was made in the image of each of 
these Gods, we learn that they were all of the same 
form, and all of the human form. Had thev been of 
different forms, man could have been made in the im¬ 
age of only one of them; and had they been of any 
other than the human form, man, in receiving that 


THE CREATOR 


85 


form, would not have been made in their image at all. 
Besides this, all three of these Gods appeared to 
Abraham in the form of men. 

T am aware that theologians of the trinitarian 
school combine, these three gods, whom they call the 
'Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and make of 
them only one god, a triune, or triple monster, called 
the Trinity. To each of the three persons, or heads 
of this monster, they give the power of separate 
thought and of separate speech, and have the lan¬ 
guage in question spoken by one of these persons 
or heads to the other two. If this view be correct, • 
however, why is it that man, who is declared to have 
been made in the image of this God, is not a triple 
monster also? On this hypothesis, is not every man 
entitled to three heads ? How does it happen, then, 
that men have been put off with only one head each, 
and that, in many cases, a very small one, and almost 

entire]v destitute of brains? 

•/ 

I am also aware that theologians unblushingly as¬ 
sume that it was something which they call man’s 
soul, and not his body—not man himself—that was 
made in the image of God. In assuming and assert¬ 
ing this, however, they contradict the plain teachings 
of the Bible, which certain!v has the first human 
body, without any soul at all, made in the image of 
God, and also has this same soulless body constitute 
the entire man himself. This I will now prove. 

In the first place, then, the Bible in one place posi¬ 
tively declares that “God created man in his own 
image;” and in another place just as positively de¬ 
clares that “ the Lord God formed man of the dust of 


80 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the ground.” Since man was made in the image of 
God, he must, of necessity, have been in that image 
the very moment the process of making him was coni' 
pitted, the very moment he became a man. But what 
was he at that moment? Simply “the dust of the 
ground,” of which he had just been made. What else 
could he have been? Undeniably, then, it was this 
“dust of the ground,” this material body that was 
formed in the image of God. Of necessity, therefore, 
God must himself have possessed just such a body. 
This “dust of the ground,” this material body, was 
now a complete man, and also a complete image of 
God, and yet it possessed no soul. It is evident, then, 
that no soul was necessary, and that no soul was used 
in making man—in making “ the image of God., ? The 
man—the whole image of God was body—was matter, 
was “dust of the ground.” Not even life was neces¬ 
sary to constitute this “dust of the ground” a man, 
or an image of God. It was both before it possessed 
any life. What was it, then, that did constitute this 
lifeless clay a man, and an image of God? It wa 3 
shape and organization, and these alone. As yet it 
possessed nothing but shape and organization, and 
yet, as I have already shown, it was a complete man, 
a complete image of God. 

But how do I know, you ask, that, when first com¬ 
pleted in the image of God, man had neither life nor 
a soul? Read again the last one of the passages which 
I have quoted, and you will learn how I know this. 
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
life; and man became a living soul.” From this it is 


THE CREATOR. 


87 


clear that the man existed, as a man, and was spoken 
of as such, from the very moment in which “the dust 
of the ground,” of which he was made, was fashioned 
into the form and the organization of a man. It is 
also equally clear that since it was in the process of 
being made a man that he received the image of God } 
he existed in that image, just as soon as he existed as 
a man. As yet, however, no life had been breathed 
into his nostrils, and no such thing existed as a living 
human soul. It was not until after the man was com¬ 
plete, as a man, and as the image of God, that he re¬ 
ceived “the breath of life, . . . and became a 

living soul.” Neither life nor a soul, then, was pres 
ent in man when he became the image of God. It 
was certainly man’s body, therefore, if it was any part 
of him, that was made in the image of God; and this 
fact proves that God must himself have possessed the 
body, or at least the shape, of which this human body 
was thus made the image. As I have already else¬ 
where shown, however, the moment we give God a 
body, or a shape of any kind, we make him, of neces¬ 
sity, a finite being, utterly incapable of ever having 
produced the universe. I thus again prove the story 
of the creation to be an absurd fiction, and the exist¬ 
ence of a Creator to be an utter impossibility. 

Whether man ever came to possess a soul at all, or 
not, is a question which I shall not attempt on the 
present occasion to determine. Indeed, it is a ques¬ 
tion with which this discussion has very little to do. 
It is certain, however, that no soul was given to man 
at the time of his creation ; and if any such thing was 
ever given to him afterwards, we have no account of 


88 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


that event. Indeed, we have no account of the crea¬ 
tion of any such thing as is now understood by the 
word soul; and, outside of the evidences given by 
Spiritualism—which few of you accept—we have not 
a particle of proof of the existence of any such thing. 

But did not God, you ask, at the time of which I 
am speaking, breathe into the man’s, nostrils a soul? 
The Bible does not represent him as breathing anything 
into the man’s nostrils on that occasion, except breath 
alone; and this it lias him do simply to start the man to 
breathing and, consequently, to living. It represents 
God as starting this man to breathing, just as we 
sometimes restart a drowned man to breathing by 
forcing breath into his lungs through his nostrils. The 
machinery of life being all perfect in the man, this was 
the most natural way to set that machinery in motion. 

So for from representing a soul as something invisi¬ 
ble that is capable of being breathed either into a 
man, or breathed out of him, the Bible represents it 
as being nothing more nor less than the material body 
of man, which was formed “ of the dust of the 
ground.” In other words, it makes the word soul a 
synonym of the word man, person, or individual, and 
uses it simply to avoid the immediate repetition of one 
of these words. After representing God as starting 
man to breathing, it says: “ And man became a living 
soul.” But what does this expression mean? It can 
mean nothing else than that the hitherto lifeless man 
became, when started to breathing, a living man. In 
place of the word soul, in the text, repeat the synony¬ 
mous word man, and you have the whole meaning 
clearly expressed. “ And the Lord God formed man 


THE CREATOR, 


89 


of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos¬ 
trils the breath of life; and man [hitherto lifeless] be¬ 
came [by being thus started to breathing] a living 
man.” This tells it all. While the man was a lifeless 
man, he was a lifeless soul. When he became a 
living man, he became, of course, “a living soul.” 

That the word soul, as used here, and in other parts 
of the Old Testament, does simply mean man, person, 
or individual, and that it is applied to the material 
and perishable body alone, we learn from a vast num¬ 
ber of passages like the following: “And Joshua at 
that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the 
king thereof with the sword: . . . And they 

smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of 
the sword, utterly destroying them : there was not any 
left to breathe ” (Josh, xi, 10, 11). What were the souls 
that Joshua thus utterly destroyed “ with the edge of 
the sword?” Could they have been anything else 
than the persons themselves ? Could they have been 
anything else than the material and mortal bodies that 
utterly perished on that occasion ? Could such souls 
as my opponents now profess to deal in—souls with 
nothing material or perishable in their composition— 
have been thus utterly destroyed “ with the edge of the 
sword?” “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. 
Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man 
and of beast, . . . And levy a tribute unto the 

Lord . . . one soul of five hundred, both of the 

persons, and of the beeves , and of the asses , and of tne 
sheep ” (Num. xxxi, 25-28). Here the beeves, the 
asses, and the sheep are all spoken of as souls, the same 
as are the persons. This is all right and proper, if, as 


90 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


I hold, the term soul means simply an individual—a 
material and perishable body. An ox, an ass, or a 
sheep is just as much an individual, just as much a 
material and perishable body, as is a man. If, how¬ 
ever, as my opponents hold, the term soul means an 
immaterial something that continues to live and to 
think after the death of the body, then in this passage 
we have positive evidence that oxen, asses, and sheep, 
as well as men, possess immortal souls. My oppo¬ 
nents will hardly contend longer for a rendering of 
the word soul that inevitably establishes the doctrine 
of the immortality of the souls of oxen, of asses, and 
of sheep. In order to find for man any other soul 
than his body, any other soul than his corporeal self, 
we must look elsewhere than in the story of creation, 
or even in the entire writings of the Old Testament, 
To attempt to find for him such a soul in this story, 
or in any of these writings, is simbly to overwhelm 
ourselves with a multitude of monstrous absurdities 
and insurmountable difficulties. 

Before he was started to breathing, man was like a 
new watch, perfect in all its parts and in all its ca¬ 
pacities, but not yet started to running. After he was 
started to breathing, he was like the same watch 
started to running. Stop the motion of the machinery 
in the running watch, and it becomes again precisely 
what it was before it was started to running. It is 
still as much a watch as it ever was, and if it be en¬ 
tirely uninjured, it may be restarted to running— 
raised, as it were, from the dead. Stop the motion of 
the machinery of life in the living man, and he again 
becomes exactly what he was before that machinery 


THE CREATOR. 


91 


was put in motion. He is still just as much a man as 
he ever was, and if he be entirely uninjured, he may 
be restarted to living—raised from the dead, as it is 
called. As no soul, or anything else, goes into a 
watch when its machinery is put in motion, or goes 
out of it when that motion ceases, so no soul, or any¬ 
thing else, necessarily goes into a man when his ma¬ 
chinery of life is put in motion, or goes out of him 
when that motion ceases. As the only difference be¬ 
tween a watch when running and when stopped con¬ 
sists, not in the presence or the absence of any element 
or principle—of any soul, as it might be called—but 
simply in a difference, as to motion or rest, in the con¬ 
dition of its machinery; so the only difference be¬ 
tween a living man or living soul and a dead one con¬ 
sists. not in the presence or the absence of anv ele- 
merit or principle called a soul or spirit, but simply in 
a difference, as to motion or rest, in the condition of 
his life machinery. In other words, his life consists 
entirely in the motion of that machinery; his death 
entirely in the stopping of that motion. We find no 
trace in him of any such soul as is taught in modern 
theology. It was certainly himself, therefore, his cor¬ 
poreal self, if it was anything, and not his imaginary 
soul, that was made in the image of God. God himself, 
then, must, of necessity, have possessed the bodily form 
of which the human body is the image; and, possess¬ 
ing such a body, he must, of necessity, have been a 
finite being, like man, utterly incapable of producing 
the infinite universe. In anv view of the case; there- 
fore, the story of the creation is bound to be utterly 
false, and the existence of a Creator utterly impossible. 



92 


DEITY ANALYZED. 




LECTURE THIRD. 

THE CREATOR.— Concluded. 

In my last lecture I charged the Bible with teach* 
ing that the earth is the principal body in the universe; 
that it is flat and stationary; that the sky is a solid 
structure or firmament placed like a vast inverted 
bowl over the earth ; that, to keep them from falling, 
the heavenly bodies are all set or stuck like nails into 
this solid structure; and many other doctrines which 
mark it, not as the word of an All-wise God, the 
great architect who formed the universe, but as the 
work of men too ignorant, or too regardless of truth, 
to be ranked among respectable writers. All these 
charges I fully proved. Knowing, however, that 
many priests, desperately determined by any means 
however foul to save their adopted gods, the means by 
which they obtain their unearned incomes, are now 
unblushingly denying that the Bible teaches the doc¬ 
trines in question, I will devote a portion of the 
present lecture to a further consideration of these 
same doctrines. 

Forgetting sixteen hundred years of their own dark 
history; forgetting how often they themselves have 
proved that the Bible does teach these doctrines; for¬ 
getting how many brave men they have had burned 




THE CREATOR 


93 


at the stake for rejecting these doctrines; forgetting 
the hundreds of passages which certainly do, un¬ 
equivocally, teach these doctrines, these hard-faced 
priests are now wont to quote one single passage, and 
that a very obscure one, to prove that the Bible teaches 
the true system of the universe—an earth revolving 
in space, etc. This passage is found in Job xxvi, 7, 

and reads as follows: “ He stretcheth out the north 

• ; 

over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon 
nothing.” As drowning men catch at straws, so these 
priests, in their desperation, catch at this extremely 
vague passage as the only one in the whole Bible that 
can possibly be so tortured as to make it indicate, on 
the part of its author, even the faintest idea of the 
true system of the universe. 

The great commentator, Dr. Clarke, however, who 
is universally admitted to be one of the ablest defend¬ 
ers the Bible has ever had, so far from holding that 
this passage indicates on the part of its author a 
knowledge of the true system of the universe, makes 
it, like all the other passages of the Bible that bear 
upon the subject, teach a flat and stationary earth. 
He says: “What is here stated may refer to the 
opinion that the earth was a vast extended plain, 
and the heavens poised upon it, resting upon this plain 
all round the horizon. Of the south the inhabitants 
of Idumea knew nothing; nor could they have any 
notion of the inhabitants in that hemisphere. [Hang¬ 
eth the earth upon nothing.] The Chaldee says, He 
layeth the earth upon the waters, nothing sustain- 
ing it. 

Could this passage, with any appearance of fairness, 


94 


’DEITY ANALYZED. 


have been so construed as to make it refer to the true 
system of the univer°e, would not Clarke have been 
sure to so construe it? Was he not eager to defend 
the Bible, as far as possible, from the grave charge of 
teaching the false doctrines which I have enumerated ? 
He was a man of too much intelligence, however, to 
attempt any such construction. He finds that hang, 
ing the earth upon nothing, means simply spreading it 
out flat upon the waters. This idea was a very com 
mon and a very natural one among the ancients. To 
them the shores or edges of the land appeared like 
edges of an immense raft, partially sunk in the water, 
and the springs that gushed from the ground in vari¬ 
ous places appeared to be coming from the “great 
deep” upon which the earth rested. The greater por¬ 
tion of the waters of the deluge was supposed to have 
gushed up from the “great deep” through openings 
or breaks in the earth made for that purpose. In 
Genesis vii, 21, we read: “The same day were all 
the fountains of the great deep broken up,” etc. In 
Gen. viii, 2, we also read: “The fountainsof thedeep, 
and the windows of heaven were stopped,” etc. The 
“ fountains” which w T ere thus “broken up” at one 
time and “stopped” at another, could have been noth¬ 
ing else than the vast openings in the ground through 
which the mighty waters of the deluge gushed up 
from the “great deep” upon which the earth rested. 
Thus is turned against them the only passage in the 
Bible which priests have ever had the effrontery to 
claim as teaching, even by implication, the true sys¬ 
tem of the universe. Indeed, when properly analyzed, 
the very language of this passage is found to be such 


THE CREATOR. 


95 


as to entirely exclude the idea of its having been ap¬ 
plied to a globe revolving in space. “ He stretcheth 
out the north over the empty place,” etc. Could Job 
have regarded the earth as a globe, when be believed 
that its northern part had been thus stretched out? 
And could he have regarded it as a body revolving in 
space, when he believed that its northern part, unlike 
the balance of it, rested in some special manner “over 
the empty place?” Would he not have perceived 
that the northern part of a revolving body could not 
have remained thus specially “stretched out” over a 
stationary “empty place?” And does any portion of 
this language apply to the earth as we now know it to 
be? So far from being thus stretched out, is not its 
northern part flattened or drawn in ? And does this 
northern part any more rest, stretched out “over the 
empty place”—whatever that is—than does the bal¬ 
ance of it ? 

Admitting, however, that this passage does probably 
indicate some idea of the universe more nearly correct 
than are those which prevail on this subject in other 
portions of the Bible, what do my opponents gain by 
this admission ? Of necessity, the language is either 
literal or figurative. If it be literal, and teaches the 
true system of the universe, then it undeniably stands 
as a direct contradiction to the multitudes of other 
passages which, as I shall soon show, certainly do 
teach a flat and stationary earth, a solid sky, etc. If 
it be figurative, and teaches the true system of the 
universe, then it is certainly not to be literally so un¬ 
derstood. No writer, intending to use figurative lan¬ 
guage, ever thinks of Such a thing as describing an 


96 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


object by what he understands to be its literal charac¬ 
teristics. Indeed, a real description cannot be figu¬ 
rative. If, then, Job meant to use figurative language, 
he certainly did not regard as literally true the ideas 
which he expressed by means of that language. In 
any view of the case, then, the passage is detrimental 
to the cause of my opponents. 

It is, also, a well-known fact that no intelligent 
writer ever uses, as figurative, either ideas or expres¬ 
sions which are generaily understood to be literally 
true by the people for whom he writes. Whether 
true or false, the idea now generally prevails in Eu¬ 
rope and America that the earth literally revolves on 
her own axis, thereby giving us the alternation of day 
and night; and, at the same time, literally revolves in 
an orbit around the sun, thereby giving us a change 
of seasons. These being the prevailing ideas on this 
subject, no American or European writer, be his own 
views what they may, would ever think of such a 
thing as giving this very description of the earth, and 
yet intend his language to be understood as figurative. 
So in regard to the writers of the Bible. In their 
time, the ideas of a flat and stationary earth, a solid 
sky or firmament, etc., generally prevailed among the 
people as literally true. No matter, then, what those 
writers themselves may have believed in regard to 
these things, they certainly could not have meant, and 
consequently did not mean to have understood in a 
figurative sense, the descriptions which they gave of 
the earth, the sky, etc. In describing the earth as flat 
and stationary, the sky as a solid structure, etc., they 
were giving the very descriptions which they verv 


THE CREATOR. 


97 


well knew the people would understand to be literally 
true descriptions of these things. Of necessity, there¬ 
fore, they must have intended these descriptions to be 
understood in a literal sense. It matters not, then, 
whether they honestly gave what they themselves be¬ 
lieved to be true descriptions of the things in question, 
or whether they dishonestly gave what they them¬ 
selves knew to be false descriptions. On the former * 
hypothesis their ignorance was so great as to render 
their writings, on these subjects at least, totally worth¬ 
less. On the latter hypothesis their want of honesty 
was so great as to render totally worthless their writ¬ 
ings on any subject. On either hj^pothesis, could they 
have been inspired by an All-wise God ? 

If, as some of my opponents claim, the writers of 
the Bible themselves understood the true system of 
the universe, why did they never impart a knowledge 
of that system to the people who looked to them, and, 
in many cases, paid them for instruction? Every his¬ 
torian knows that the Hebrews always understood 
their scriptures to teach, in a strictly literal sense, a 
flat and stationary earth, a solid sky or firmament, 
etc. What, then, are we to think of the writers of 
those scriptures who thus, by means of their writings, 
knowingly misled the people? Did God inspire 
them to thus deceive the people and bind them 
to error? For obvious reasons, theologians generally 
deny that the Bible does thus teach false doctrines 
in regard to the earth, the sky, etc., and assert 
that we have only to properly understand the lan¬ 
guage of the Bible to see that its teachings harmonize 
beautifully with the known truths of science. In 


98 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


order to prove the correctness of their assertion, these 
theologians are wont to quote from Job the vague pas¬ 
sage which I have already noticed. But how did it 
happen that the Hebrews themselves never properly 
understood their own writings, and never from them 
obtained a knowledge of the true system of the uni¬ 
verse ? 

Besides all this, how did it happen that the Chris¬ 
tians also, for more than fifteen hundred years, used 
the Bible without ever obtaining from its teachings 

even the faintest idea of the true svstem of the uni- 

•/ 

verse? How did it happen that during all those ages 
they universally understood it to teach all the doc¬ 
trines of a flat and stationary earth, a solid sky, etc,, 
winch I now charge it with teaching? If, in teaching 
that the earth isaglobe revolving in space, Galileo was 
simply teaching a doctrine of the Bible, how did the 
highest authorities of the church manage to prove, as 
they did, that his teachings on this subject were diamet¬ 
rically opposed to the teachings of the Bible on the 
same subject? Why did they punish him as a here¬ 
tic for teaching this doctrine of the Bible, and why 
did they compel him to recant? So of Bruno. If, in 
teaching that there are other worlds besides the earth, 
he was merely teaching a doctrine of the Bible, how 
did the highest authorities of the church manage to 
prove as they did that his teachings on this subject 
were diametrically opposed to the teachings of the 
Bible on the same subject? And why did they burn 
him at the stake for teaching this doctrine of the 
Bible? Were there, for more than fifteen centuries, 
no Christians at all, not even the apostles themselves. 


THE CREATOR. 


99 


who were the authors of a portion of it, that possessed 
sufficient intelligence to understand the plain teach¬ 
ings of the Bible on this subject, and to discover the 
beautiful harmony which my opponents would have 
us believe exists between these teachings and the 
demonstrated truths of science? Has it indeed been 
left four thousand years for my opponents to discover 
this beautiful harmony which was never before even 
suspected to exist between the teachings of the Bible 
and the truths of science? Finally, how did it hap¬ 
pen that the true system of the universe was discov¬ 
ered and made known to the world, not by the 
readers and followers of the Bible, but by men whom 
they bitterly opposed as heretics and Infidels whose 
teachings, if not suppressed, would ultimate!}' over¬ 
throw the Bible? But let us see what Dr. Wm. 
Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, says on the subject. 

Of the firmament, he says: ‘‘The Hebrew term 
ralda, so translated, is generally regarded as expressive 
of simple expansion, and is so rendered in the mai •gin 
of the A. V. (Gen. i, 6). The root means to expand 
by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any in¬ 
strument It is especially used of beating out metal; 
into thin plates (Ex. xxxix, 3; Num. xvi, 39). The 
sense of solidity, therefore, is combined with the ideas 
of expansion and tenuity in the term. The same idea 
of solidity runs through all the references to the rakia. 
In Ex. xxiv, 10, it is represented as a solid floor. So 
again in Ezek. i, 22-26, the firmament is the floor on 
which the throne of the Most High is placed. Fur¬ 
ther, the office of the rakia in the economy of the 
world demanded strength and substance. It was to 


too 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


serve as a division between tbe waters above and tbe 
waters below (Gen. i, 7). In keeping with this view 
tbe rakia was provided with windows and doors 
through which the rain and the snow might descend 
(Gen. vii, 11; Is. xxiv, 18; Mai. iii, 10; Ps. Ixxviii, 
23). A secondary purpose which the rakia served 
was to support the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and 
stars (Gen. i, 14), in which they were fixed as nails, 
and from which, consequently, they might be said to 
drop off (Is. xiv, 12, xxxiv, 4; Matt xxiv, 29)." I)r. 
Smith also says : “ The earth was regarded not only 
as the central point of the universe, but as the uni¬ 
verse itself, every other body—the heavens, sun, 
moon, and stars—being subsidiary to, and, as it were, 
the complements of the earth." So much for the 
testimony of one of the ablest Bible critics of modern 
times. 

You will notice that he speaks of the heavens as a 
body, and enumerates it with the sun, the moon, and 
the stars, as one of the complements of the earth. By 
many, the heavens or sky was supposed to be com¬ 
posed of metallic plates. Indeed, as I have already 
proved by Dr. Smith’s testimony, this is the primary 
meaning of the Hebrew word rakia. 

The testimony of standard Bible dictionaries, such 
as the one from which I have quoted, ought to be 
sufficient to decide the questions at issue. In order 
to leave no possible room for caviling, however, I 
will now prove, by the testimony of the Bible itself, 
the truth of every charge that I have brought against it 

1. By the following passages I prove that the Bible 
represents the earth as a stationary body, firmlv fixed 


THE CREATOR 


101 


upon pillars, or resting upon the waters of the great 
deep, or on other material foundations. In these and 
all the other passages which I shall quote, the italics 
are mine. “For th e pillars of the earth are the Lord’s 
and he hath set the world upon them ” (1 Sam. ii, 9), 
“ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the 
earth ? . . . Who hath laid the measure thereof, if 

thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon 
it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? 
Or who hath laid the corner-stone thereof?” (Job 
xxxviii, 4-6). “ Who laid the foundations of the 

earth that it should not be removed forever? ” (Ps. civ, 
5). “Which shaketh the earth out of her place , and 
the pillars thereof tremble ” (Job xix, 6). “ Mine hand 
also hath laid the foundations of the earth ” (Is. xlviii, 
13). “ The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are 

dissolved \ I bear up the pillars of it” (Ps. Ixxv, 
3). “ Hear ye, O mountains, the Lord’s controversy, 

and ye strong foundations of the earth ” (Mic. vi, 2). 
“For the windows from on high are open and the 
foundations of the earth do shake. The earth shall reel 
to and fro like a drunkard , and shall be removed like 
a collage ” (Is. xxiv, 18-20). “ The world also is estab¬ 
lished that it cannot be moved ” (Ps. xciii, 1). “ And 

the channels of the sea appeared , the foundations of the 
world were discovered . . . (2 Sam., xxii, 16). 

“Which . . . layeth the foundations of the earth ” 

(Zech. xii, 1). “And thou, Lord, in the beginning 
hast laid the foundations of th e earth v (Heb. i, 10). 

“ For the earth is the Lord’s; . . .he hath founded 

it upon the seas and established it upon the floods" (Ps. 
xxiv, 1, 2). ‘‘ To him that stretched out the earth above 


102 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the waters ” (Ps. cxxxvi, 6). Dare my opponents say 
that all these declarations and representations are 
true? 

2. By the following passages I prove that the Bible 

represents the earth as a flat body—as being “ spread 
forth,” “stretched out,” etc., terms which could not 
be applied to a body of a spherical form. “ Thus 
saith God the Lord, . . . he that spread forth the 

earth ” . . . (Is. xlii, 5). “To him that stretched 

out the earth above the waters” (Ps. cxxxvi, 6). “ I 

am the Lord . . . that spreadeth abroad the earth 

by myself” (Is. xliv, 24). “And thou, Lord, in the 
beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth ; and 
the heavens are the works of thine hands. They 
shall perish ; but thou remainest, and they shall wax 
old as doth a garment And as a vesture shalt thou 
fold them up ” . . . (Heb. i, 18-12). ' Do my op¬ 

ponents really believe that the earth ever w T as in very 
fact thus “spread forth,” “stretched out,” etc., and 
that it ever will be folded up like a vesture? 

3. In the same way I prove that the Bible repre¬ 
sents the earth as by far the largest body in the uni¬ 
verse—as affording plenty of room for all the heavenly 
bodies to fall upon, and as being so spread out under 
them that, of necessity, they all strike it when they 
do fall. “ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Luci¬ 
fer, son of the morning” (Is. xiv, 12). “Andall the 
hosts of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens 
shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all their hosts 
shall fall down as the leaf falleth off from the vine, 
and as a falling fig from the fig-tree.” (Is. xxxiv, 4). 
“And the stars shall fall from heaven, and the pow- 


THE CREATOR. 


103 


ers of the heavens shall be shaken ” (Matt, xxiv, 29 i 
u And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great 
star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it 
fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the 
fountains of waters” (Rev. viii, 10). “And the fifth 
angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven 
unto the earth” (Rev. ix, 1). “I beheld Satan as 
lightning fall from heaven” (Luke x, 18). “And 
there was war in heaven; Michael and his ansrels 
fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought and 
his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place 
found any more in heaven. And the great dragon 
was cast out, ... he was cast out into the earth, 
and his angels were cast out with him ” (Rev. xii, 7-9). 
“And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as 
a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken 
of a mighty wind ”... (Rev. vi, 18. 14). Does 
any intelligent person truty believe that the stars of 
heaven—to say nothing about the devils—ever did, or 
ever could, come rattling down upon the earth, as here 
described, like so many figs? 

4. By the following passages I prove that the Bible 
represents what we call the sky as a solid structure or 
firmament, placed like a vast inverted bowl over the 
earth: “ And God made the firmament, and divided 
the waters which were under the firmament from the 
waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. 
And God called the firmament heaven ” (Gen. i, 7, 8). 
“Hast thou with him spread out the sky , which is 
strong , and as a molten looking-glass ” (Job. xxxvii, 18) ? 
Would my opponents be willing to swear that they 


104 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


really believe in the existence of any such firmament, 
of any such strong sky ? 

5. By the following passages I prove that the Bible 

has vast bodies of water placed “ above the firma 
ment,” and, consequently, above the sun, the moon, 
and the stars, which, as I shall soon prove, were set in 
the firmament. I also prove that these waters may, at 
any time, be made to pour down upon the earth 
through windows or doors, made in the firmament for 
this purpose. “ And God made the firmament, and 
divided the waters which were under the firmament 
from the waters which were above the firmament; and 
it was so. And God called the firmament heaven” 
(Gen. i, 7, 8). “ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s 

life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the 
month, the same day were all the fountains of the 
great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven 
were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty 
days and forty nights ” (Gen. vii, 11, 12). “ The 

fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven 
were stopped, and the rain from heaven (not from the 
clouds) was restrained ” (Gen. viii, 2). The paren¬ 
thesis is mine. “Though he had commanded the 
clouds from above and opened the doors of heaven” 
(Ps. Ixxviii, 23). Do any of you really believe that 
there actually are any such bodies of water above the 
sun, the moon, and the stars, and that this water can 
be made to pour down upon the earth through win¬ 
dows or doors in any such solid sky or heaven? 

6. By the following passages I prove that, in order 
to keep them from falling, the Bible 3ms the sun, the 
moon, and the stars, set or stuck like nails into this 



THE CREATOR. 


105 


firmament or solid sky; and that it consequently has 
them all placed at an equal distance from the earth, 
and a little lower than are “the waters which were 
above the firmament.” I also prove that the Bible 
has this firmament so violently shaken sometimes that 
the heavenly bodies drop out of it and fall to the earth. 
“ And God made two great lights; the greater light to 
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he 
made the stars also. And God set them in the firma¬ 
ment of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and 
to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide 
the light from the darkness” (Gen. i, 16-18). “And 
the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig- 
tree casteth her untimely figs. And the heavens de¬ 
parted as a scroll when it is rolled together” (Rev. 
vi, 13, 14). “ And the stars shall fall from heaven, 

and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” 
(Matt, xxiv, 29). Does any intelligent person really 
believe that the heavenly bodies, all at an equal dis¬ 
tance from the earth, actually are thus set into a solid 
skv or firmament, and that they actually can be, and 
have been, thus shaken out of it and made to fall upon 
the earth ? 

7. By the following passages I prove that, like the 
pngans of old times, the Bible locates the throne of 
God and his dwelling-place upon this same solid sky or 
firmament, into which, as we have already seen, it has 
the heavenly bodies all set, and above which it has 
vast boJies cf water placed. I also prove that the 
Bible represents this solid sky, this firmament or 
heaven, as being always directly above the earth, so 
that whatever falls from heaven is bound to strike the 


106 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


earth. In proving this, I als<3 prove that, of necessity, 
the earth must remain stationary directly under this 
firmament, or that the firmament itself, with God and 
all his hosts upoa it, must be so connected with the 
earth as to accompany her in all her revolutions. 
“ And they saw the God of Israel; and there was 
under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire 
stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clear¬ 
ness ” (Ex. xxiv, 10). “ And above the firmament 

that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, 
as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezek. i, 26). 
“The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord’s throne is 
in heaven ” (Ps. xi, 4). For as the heaven is high 
above the earth” (Ps. ciii, 11). “And the great 
dragon was cast out [of heaven] into the earth, and 
his angels were cast out with him” (Rev. xii, 9). 
“ How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of 
the morning ” (Is. xiv, 19). “I beheld Satan as light¬ 
ning fall from heaven ” (Luke x, 18). “And the 
stars of heaven fell unto the earth ” (Rev. vi, 13). 
Do you really believe all these things? If so, does 
the earth remain stationary under the solid sky, or 
does the solid sky, with its God, its angels, its saints, 
its vast bodies of water, its sun, its moon, and its stars, 
accompany the earth in all her revolutions? Does 
the sun, in particular, accompany the earth in her 
revolutions around himself? 

8. By the following passages I prove that the Bible 
represents this solid sky or heaven as having founda¬ 
tions resting, like the rim or edge of an inverted bowl, 
upon the earth, or in the waters upon which the earth 
herself is represented as being “stretched out.” 



THE CREATOR. 


107 


‘ The pillars of heaven tremble,” . . . (Job xxvi, 

11). “ The fouadations of heaven moved and shook 

because he was wroth ” (2 Sam. xxii, 8). Here we 

certainly have heaven with foundations. “Thus 

saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the 

earth is my foot-stool ” (Is. lxvi, 1). “ It is he that 

sitteth upon the circle of the earth, . . . that 

stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth 

them out as a tent to dw r ell in ” (Is. xl, 22). “Who 

. . stretchest out the heavens like a curtain. 

Who laveth the beams of his chambers in the waters ” 
%/ 

(Ps. civ, 2, 3). “He watereth the hills from his cham¬ 
bers ” (Ps. civ, 13). As here described, heaven, 
spread out “as a tent to dwell in,” corresponds ex¬ 
actly with what we call the sky as it appears to our 
unaided vision. Since God was supposed to sit upon 
the heavens, and the heavens to rest with their circu¬ 
lar edge, like the edge of an inverted bowl, upon the 
earth, the author very consistently speaks of him 
as sitting “ upon the circle of the earth.” As here 
mentioned, “the circle of the earth ” can be nothing 
else than the visible horizon—the circle formed by 
the sky where it meets and rests upon the earth. 
That portion of the circular edge of the sky or heav¬ 
en, which extended out beyond the land into the 
waters was supposed to rest upon beams, or something 
else more substantial than water. With this idea in 
his mind, the author very consistently speaks of God 
as laying “ the beams of his chambers in the waters;” 
and, in view of the vast bodies of water which some 
supposed to be “above the firmament,” he also very 
consistently speaks of God as watering “ the hills 


108 


DKITT ANALYZED. 


from his chambers." But do my opponents really be¬ 
lieve that any such solid sky or heaven—any such 
vast inverted bowl—does actually rest upon the 
earth, thus forming the circle of the earth, or upon 
beams laid in the waters? If they do not believe all 
this, then I am not alone in rejecting the teachings of 
the Bible. 

9. In order to remove every vestige of doubt on the 
subject, I venture, by repeating several passages, to still 
further prove that the Bible certainly does represent 
the firmament or heaven as a distinct material body, 
sufficiently firm to support vast bodies of water which 
were placed upon it, and all the heavenly bodies 
which were set in it. I also prove that the Bible rep¬ 
resents this firmament or heaven as capable of stand- 
ing by itself after all the heavenly bodies have been 
shaken out of it r and of being then rolled together 
like a scroll, or folded up like a garment, and taken 
away. “And God made the firmament, and divided 
the waters which were under the firmament, from the 
waters which were above the firmament . . . . 

And God called the firmament heaven " (Gen. i, 7, 8). 
“ And God set them [all the heavenly bodies] in the 
firmament" (Gen. i, 17). “And the stars of heaven 
fell unto the earth. . . . And the heaven de¬ 

parted as a scroll when it is rolled together " (Rev. vi, 
18, 14). “And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast 
laid the foundations of the earth : and the heavens 
are the work of thine hands. And as a vesture shall 
thou fold them up ” (Heb. i, 10-12). “ But the day 

of the Lord will come as a tjfief in the night; in the 
which the heayens shall pass away with a great noise, 


THE CREATOR. 


109 


and . . . wherein the heavens being on fire, shall 

be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent 
heat. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look 
for new heavens and a new earth (2 Pet iii, 10-13). 

10. Finally, by the following passages, I prove that 
the Bible represents day as entirely independent of 
the sun, and light as a very rare substance or body, 
entirely independent of any source or luminous body, 
and as capable of existing without motion. “And 
God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 
And God saw the light, that it was good : and God 
divided the light from the darkness. And God called 
the light day. and the darkness he called night: and the 
evening and the morning were the first day. 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to 
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: 
l>e made the stars also. And set them in the firma¬ 
ment of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and 
to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide 
the light from the darkness : . . And the evening 

and the morning were the fourth day " (Gen. i, 3-19). 
From these passages we learn that light existed before 
there was anything at all to shine or give forth light 
and that day existed, with its evenings, and mornings, 
during three full days, or, as some theologians have 
it, during three entire geological epochs, before there 
was any sun to produce da} 7 . “While the sun, or the 
light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened” 
(Eccl. xii, 2). Here we certainly have four distinct 
kinds of luminous bodies: the sun, the light, the 
moon, and the stars. “The day is thine, the night 
also is thine : thou hast prepared the light and the 


110 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


sun ” (Ps. lxxiv, 16). Here, again, we have light as a 
distinct body. 

I have now fully proved that the Bible clearly 
teaches ten important, and yet demonstrably false, 
doctrines concerning the form, the nature, the posi¬ 
tion, etc., of the earth, the sun, the moon, and the 
stars, and concerning the source or cause of day, the 
nature of light, etc. The fact of its teaching any one 
of these ten false doctrines is evidently sufficient to 
prove that the Bible is not the inspired word of :m 
All-wise God, and that its teachings are not worthy 
of the confidence of mankind. Were it necessary, I 
could adduce a great number of additional passages to 
prove that the Bible certainly does teach all of these 
ten false doctrines. Further proof, however, is surely 
unnecessary. 

All the passages which I have quoted are either 
plain statements of what, at the time they were made, 
were almost universally believed to be literal facts, or 
plain allusions to such supposed facts. As I have 
already shown, therefore, the writers of these passages 
could not have intended that their language should be 
understood in any other than its literal sense. At 
any rate, it was understood only in its literal sense by 
those people for whom it was intended ; and the au¬ 
thors, although living right among those people, and 
knowing full well how the language in question was 
understood by them, never even so much as intimated 
that it was not understood in its proper sense. Had 
they intended that their language should be under¬ 
stood in a figurative sense, they certainly could, and 
just as certainly would, have managed in some way to 



THE CREATOR 


111 


make it so understood. When, therefore, they as¬ 
serted that the Lord had set the earth upon pillars, 
that he had made a solid sky or firmament, that he 
had made day independent of the sun, etc., etc., they 
evidently asserted either so many literal facts, or so 
many literal falsehoods, and we must accept their as¬ 
sertions accordingly. 

As I have likewise already shown, the whole Chris¬ 
tian church, for more than fifteen centuries, also uni¬ 
versally understood these passages as strictly literal 
descriptions of real objects, and of actual events; and 
so long as they retained the power to do so, they 
burned at the stake, as heretics and Infidels, all who 
dared teach any doctrines that would conflict with the 
literal teachings of these and similar passages. After 
a long and desperate struggle, however, in defense of 
their flat and stationary earth, their solid sky or firma¬ 
ment, etc., the champions of the Bible were at last 
compelled to yield to the truths of science, and to ad¬ 
mit that the earth never was flat and stationary, that 
the sky never was a solid structure, that day never 
was independent of the sun, that light never was in¬ 
dependent of a source, etc. In making these enforced 
admissions—and this they did with a very poor grace— 
these champions of the Bible, as a matter of course, 
virtually confessed that they had always been the ad¬ 
vocates of error in regard to the matters in question, 
and that, for teaching the truth in regard to these 
matters, they had put to death, by the most horrible 
tortures, vast numbers of good and brave men. 

But what were these convicted advocates of error to 
do with the Bible, by the teachings of which alone 


112 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


they had been enabled so long to sustain their errors? 
In this book they still found clearly taught, as the 
word of God, these confessedly erroneous doctrines of 
a flat and stationary earth, a solid sky, etc., which had 
led themselves to commit so many cruel murders upon 
the advocates of the truths of science. Under such 
circumstances honest men would have promptly re¬ 
jected this book as a pernicious thing—as the most 
formidable obstacle to the advancement of light and 
knowledge. Not so, however, with these champions of 
the Bible—these great fathers of the Christian church. 
To have rejected the Bible would have been to re* 
ject the only means by which they were enabled to 
keep the people in subjection to themselves; the only 
means, too, by which, without any honest labor on 
their own part, they were enabled to lead lives of lux¬ 
urious ease. It would not have done, therefore, to 
reject the Bible. In order to retain it, however, they 
found themselves compelled to make the wonderful 
discovery that its teachings did not in the least con¬ 
flict with the known truths of science; that the very 
tilings which they themselves had so often and so 
clearly proved to be direct and irreconcilable contra¬ 
dictions, and on the strength of which they had mur¬ 
dered so many innocent persons, were after all, when 
properly understood, the most beautiful harmonies. 

in order, however, to make this truly wonderful, 
but absolutely necessary, discovery, the champions of 
the Bible were compelled first to make the equally 
wonderful discovery that when speaking of the form 
and the nature of the earth, the sky, etc., none of the 
writers of the Bible—unless it was the author of Job 


THE CREATOR. 


113 


in tiie one vague passage to which I have referred— 
ever meant what they said, or said what they meant; 
that when, for instance, they said day, they meant a 
thousand years, a geological epoch, a long and indefi¬ 
nite period, a quantity of caloric or latent heat, etc.; 
that they meant anything and everything, in fact, which 
might ever in the future be necessary to make their 
writings harmonize with the truths of science. All 
these facts are too well known to require any proof. 
Every person well acquainted with the history of the 
Christian church knows that, until they were com¬ 
pelled to do so, the champions of the Bible never 
thought of such a thing as giving any other than a 
strictly literal meaning to any of the passages in qucs 
tion. It is, also, a well-known fact that notwithstand¬ 
ing the demonstrated revelations of science to the 
contrary, many good persons still hold to the idea of 
a flat and stationary earth, a solid sky or firmament, a 
sun revolving about the earth, etc., simply because 
they find these things so plainly taught in the Bible, 
and because they dare not, for a moment, doubt the 
correctness of any of its teachings. 

Could these protean champions of the Bible have 
found one single passage in that book which really did 
describe the earth as a globe, revolving in space, would 
they ever have thought of such a thing as giving to 
the language of that passage any other than a strictly 
literal meaning? Would they not, on the contrary, 
have vauntinglv pointed to that passage as the only 
source whence the world ever had obtained, or ever 
could have obtained, a knowledge of the true system 
of the universe t You all know that they would. 


114 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


And yet, from the fact that in their time such a de¬ 
scription of the earth would not have been understood 
at all as literally true, would not the writers of the 
Bible, if they had given any such description, have 
been far more likely to mean it as figurative than they 
were to so mean the descriptions which they did give, 
and which they knew would be understood in a literal 
sense? If, then, the vague passage which I have 
quoted from Job, and which is the only one of the 
passages in question of which my opponents are now 
willing to accept a literal renderings really does refer 
to the earth as a body revolving in space, is it not far 
more likely to have been meant as figurative language 
than are any of those passages which describe the 
earth as a flat body firmly fixed upon pillars, or spread 
out like a vast floating garden upon the waters? 

Besides all these things, wcall know that no serious 
writer ever degrades his subject by the use of figures 
less noble, less beautiful, and less grand than are the 
real ideas which he intends to convey by means of his 
figures. We all know that no serious writer, for in¬ 
stance, wishing to convey the grandest possible idea of 
one of our magnificent ocean steamers, proudly career¬ 
ing over the mighty billows of the great deep, would ever 
think of such a thing as attempting to convey such 
an idea by using as a figure an old ox-cart splashing 
though a mud puddle. And vet, such a figure in 
such a case would not be so degrading as would be 
the Bible’s little one-horse earth, propped up on posts 
or spread out like a garment upon the waters, if it 
were used as a figure of the unspeakable grandeur and 
glory of the universe as it really is. In attempting, 


THE CREATOR. 


11 5 

as they did, to convey bv means of his works the 
highest possible idea of the Omnipotent himself, would 
not the serious writers of the Bible have expressed 
for that purpose the most exalted ideas of which they 
were capable of conceiving? Besides all this, since 
every figurative expression, as you all know, is in¬ 
tended simply to strengthen or to beautify, not to hide 
some real meaning, I would like to know what is the 
real meaning which the figure—if it be a figure—of a 
little flat earth, propped up on posts, is intended to 
strengthen or to beautify. Will my opponents please 
give us that meaning? 

I am aware that many of the champions of the Bible 
attempt to evade several of the difficulties which I 
have pointed out by claiming that, as used in the Bible, 
the word firmament means simple expansion or space, 
and nothing more. In the margin of the Accepted 
Version, the word expansion is given as the rendering 
of the Hebrew word ralcia , which, in the text itself, is 
rendered firmament. Professing to do so by inspira¬ 
tion of God, the Mormons or Latter Day Saints have, 
in the text itself, replaced the word firmament with 
the word expanse. This change of rendering, how¬ 
ever, can be of no avail to the champions of the Bible. 
In the first place, as I have already shown, the He¬ 
brew word rakia, as well as the Latin word firma- 
mentum , in all cases, involves the ideas both of sub¬ 
stance and of solidity. This new rendering, therefore, of 
these words by the word expanse or expansion, mean¬ 
ing space alone, unconnected with the idea of either 
substance or solidity, is evidently an unfair and incor¬ 
rect one, resorted to by the champions of the Bible in 


116 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


their desperate efforts, not to convey the truth to the 
people, but to shield the Bible from the difficulties to 
which they find that, in the present light of science, it 
is subjected by a fair and correct rendering of the 
terms in question. Granting to my opponents their 
new rendering of these terms, however, what do they 
gain thereby? 

As I have already shown, the rahia or firmament 
was something which did not exist until it was made, 
and the making of which occupied the entire second 
day of creation. Space, however, as I have likewise 
already shown, from its very nature, must, of neces¬ 
sity, have always existed. Of necessity, God himself 
had to have space to exist in, and so had the earth 
and light which were made one day, or one geological 
epoch, before the creation of the firmament. It could 
not have been space, therefore, or simple expansion 
that God made on the second day. Of necessity, it 
must have been something else, something which did 
not previously exist, unless we assume that God idled 
away one entire day, and then pretended that he had 
occupied it in making something which he very well 
knew he had never made at all. There is no escaping 
this conclusion. It is also a fact, well known to every 
grammarian, that the words a and the, being limiting 
particles, cannot be applied to any but finite objects. 
Space, therefore, being of necessit}' infinite, evidently 
cannot, when spoken of in its entirety, admit either of 
these particles. The fact, then, that these particles are 
applied to the term firmament, in the passages in ques¬ 
tion, is proof positive that the firmament was a finite 
object, and that, if it consisted simply of space, it 




THE CREATOR 


117 


must, of necessity, have been only a limited portion of 
space. But was any such limited portion of space 
ever absent from infinite space—ever absent from ex¬ 
istence—so as to need to be made on the second day 
of creation ? In what was the earth already existing, 
if not in this very same limited portion of space? 

“ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the 
midst of the waters: and let it divide the waters from 
the waters. And God made the firmament, and di¬ 
vided the waters which were under the firmament 
from the waters which were above the firmament” 
(Gen. i, 6, 7). From these passages we learn that the 
principal object for which the firmament was created 
was to “divide the waters from the waters.” We also 
learn that the firmament extended only from the 
“waters which were under” it, to “the waters which 
were above ” it. “Very good,” says one of my oppo¬ 
nents ; “ the firmament is simply that portion of space 
which intervenes between the waters on the surface of 
the earth, and the waters of the clouds.” Very good, say 
I too; but did not this portion of space exist until God 
made it on the second day of creation ? Did God occupy 
a whole day in making this small portion of space, when 
he afterwards made the sun, the moon, and the stars 
in one day ? How did God manage, two days, or two 
geological epochs, later, to set the sun, the moon, and 
the stars all in this limited portion of space ? Fi¬ 
nally, if the sun, the moon, and the stars were origi¬ 
nally set in this limited portion of space, why do we 
not find them in it now ? 

Besides all these things, the Bible places God's 
throne and dwelling-place either inside the firmament 


118 


DEITY ANALYZED 


or heaven, or else upon its upper surface. And are 
God’s throne and dwelling-place no farther from us 
than are the clouds? Besides this, “God called the 
firmament heaven.’’ If, therefore, the firmament be 
simply a limited portion of space surrounding the 
earth, then we, being in that portion of space, are evi- 
dently in heaven—in the same heaven, too, in which 
God is. This view is equally correct, if we make the 
firmament consist simply of space or expansion, no mat¬ 
ter how far from the earth we may make that space or 
expansion extend. Why, then, need we make so much 
ado about going to heaven, when we are already 
there? But where are the golden harps, the penny 
trumpets, etc? 

In addition to all this, the Bible represents the 
firmament or heaven as something that is capable of 
growing old, as does a garment, and of being burned 
up, or at least dissolved by heat; as something, too, that 
is not only capable of being rolled together as a scroll, 
and taken away, but that actually is to be so disposed 
of in order to make room for a new heaven that is to 
take its place. And is simple space capable of thus 
growing old, of being thus dissolved by heat, or of 
being thus rolled together and taken away; and is 
new space capable of taking the place of old and 
worn-out space, thus removed ? 

As I have already shown, the Bible also teaches 
that many stars and many devils have fallen from this 
firmament or heaven, and have alighted upon the 
earth, and that all the balance of the stars are des¬ 
tined yet to fall in the same manner. In order to 
fall thus from heaven, it is evidently necessary for the 


THE CREATOR. 


119 


stars and the devils to pass entirely out of heaven. In 
suffering this fall, however, the stars and the devils do 
not pass entirely out of space at all. It cannot be 
space, then, from which they fall. Besides this, we 
meet with another difficulty. If we extend this space 
firmament of my opponents oidy to a hight of one or 
two miles from the earth, so as to have the clouds 
represent the waters which the Bible says “were above 
the firmament,” we have not room for the sun, the 
moon, and the stars which the Bible also says were 
set “in the firmament” If, on the other hand, we 
extend this so-called firmament to a sufficient distance 
from the earth, as we certainly must, to take in all the 
stars, then we find it extremely difficult to provide the 
necessary waters above this firmament, and to have 
them pour down upon the earth through windows 
when we want a flood. Let the firmament have been 
what it may, the waters which were above it were 
bound to be also above the sun, the moon, and the 
stars which were set in it. How will my opponents 
escape this difficulty? Besides this, how will they find 
room on the earth for all the stars when they come 
rattling down upon her, as the Bible says they cer¬ 
tainly will, like so many figs? What power has the 
earth to draw all the heavenly bodies to herself, as the 
Bible says she certainly does whenever they are 
shaken loose from the firmament or heaven to which 
they are fixed? Finally, in order to sustain their 
theory of a simple space or expansion firmament, my 
opponents must show how it can be possible on the 
last day of the world for all the stars to be shaken 
out of heaven at once, as the Bible says they will be, 


120 DEITY ANALYZED. 

and for them, all to be made to strike the earth at the 
same moment, when some of them are millions of 
times farther off than are others, and when many of 
them, according to the laws of gravitation, would re¬ 
quire thousands of ages, if not eternity itself, for their 
wonderful fall. From all these things it is evi¬ 
dent that by the word rakia or firmament, the 
Bible does not mean simple space or expansion. It is 
equally evident that it does mean the supposed solid 
sky of the ancient pagans, into which, all at an equal 
distance from the earth, the heavenly bodies were sup¬ 
posed to be set or stuck, and from which it was sup¬ 
posed they could all be shaken at once, and made to 
strike the earth at the same time. 

This Bible firmament, or heaven, like that of the 
pagans, is represented as being the home of a supreme 
God, and of an immense host of inferior deities or an¬ 
gels. This firmament, too, like that of the pagans, is 
represented as having once been the theater of a ter¬ 
rible civil war, in which the victors tumbled the van¬ 
quished down headlong upon the earth. The supreme 
God of this heaven, like the gods of the pagans, is 
represented as having always had, among men, a set of 
special favorites whom he has always helped to rob 
and to butcher other men. This God, too, like the 
gods of the pagans, is represented as having once been 
very fond of roast beef and other similar articles of 
diet, and as having been, like those pagan gods, ac¬ 
customed to forgive a certain amount of sins as the 
price of a certain amount of roast beef, etc. This 
God is also represented as having come down to earth, 
after the manner of the pagan gods, and begotten a 


THE CREATOR. 


121 


son—gods rarely condescend to beget daughters— 
upon a woman to whom he was never married. This 
God, like the pagan gods, is still further represented 
as having always encouraged his followers in the 
practice of slavery, polygamy, concubinage, and almost 
every other form of licentiousness; as having always 
been an implacable and merciless enemy to all man¬ 
kind except his few special licentious favorites; and 
finally, as having always been an absolute despot, op¬ 
posed to everything of a republican nature. 

In short, by the unequivocal testimony of the Bible 
itself, as read in the light of modern science, I have 
now fully proved not only that the story of creation 
is utterly false, but also that every idea which we pos¬ 
sess of a personal God, a personal devil, a local hell, 
a local heaven, etc., is borrowed from the pagans, or 
is, at least, held in common with them. 

When, however, we prove, as we certainly do, be¬ 
yond all possible contradiction, that the story of cre¬ 
ation will not bear the test of science, theologians cry 
out that the Bible was never intended to teach science, 
and that its language and its ideas had to be adapted 
to the comprehension of the ignorant people for whom 
it was written. From this it would appear that the 
Bible was not intended for any but the most ignorant 
men of primitive ages. Why, then, do the very theolo¬ 
gians who teach this doctrine persist in their attempts to 
thrust the Bible upon educated men of the present 
time, to whose superior intelligence its language and 
its ideas were never intended to be adapted. Ad¬ 
mitting, however, that it never was intended to teach 
science, was it, or was it not, intended to teach the 


122 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


truth in all it does teach? If it was not so intended, 
then, of course, its teachings are totally worthless. If 
it was so intended, was that intention, or w T as it not, 
carried out in the production of the Bible? If it was 
not then, of course, as before, the teachings of this 
book are totally worthless. If it was, then, of 
course all the teachings of the Bible are necessa¬ 
rily true, and the earth certainty is flat and station* 
ary, the sky certainly is a solid structure, the stars 
certainly are mere figs when compared in size with the 
earth, day certainly is independent of the sun. etc., 
just as the Bible teaches that they are. I defy any 
escape from these conclusions. Besides all these 
things, if the Bible really was not intended to teach 
science, why do theologians make such desperate 
efforts to prove that its teachings are entirety in har- 
. mony with those of science; and why do they pre¬ 
tend that the word day, as used in the story of creation, 
means a geological epoch, caloric, or latent heat, etc., 
when they very well know that these terms are not 
used, and that the ideas expressed by them are not 
understood, even at the present time, except by per¬ 
sons who have devoted some time to the study of 
science ? 

Is it true, however, that the Bible was not intended 
to teach science? In claiming to teach the origin of 
the earth, the process of her formation, her final des¬ 
tiny, etc., does it not claim to teach Geolog}^? In 
claiming to teach the origin, the nature, the position, 
and the final destiny of the heavenly bodies, does it 
not profess to teach Astronomy? In claiming to 
teach the origin, the nature, etc., of plants and an- 


THE CREATOR 


123 


imals, does it not claim to teach Botany and Zoology? 
In claiming to teach the origin, the nature, and the 
final destiny of man, does it not claim to teach the 
highest of all sciences, Anthropology? In short, what 
science is there that it does not claim to teach? Does 
not the entire system of the Christian religion depend 
upon the correctness with which it teaches these sci¬ 
ences? If it teaches them correctly, then, is not the 
earth certainly a flat and stationary body, the sky a 
solid structure, etc., and Christianity a true religion? 
If it teaches them incorrectly, then, are not its flat and 
stationary earth, its solid sky, etc., mere myths, and 
Christianity a monstrous imposition? Which horn of 
this dilemma will my opponents choose? 

With these remarks I close my notice of the gen¬ 
eral creation. In demonstrating, as I have, that the 
story of this pretended creation is a baseless fabrica¬ 
tion, I have demonstrated that the Bible, of which it 
is an essential part, is the work of ignorant, if not 
wicked, men, and not that of an All-wise God. 

I will now close my analysis of the Creator by no¬ 
ticing, specially, the creation of the devil, of the ser¬ 
pent, and of man. In the creation of these God seems 
to have made as great a mistake as he made when he 
created the earth flat and stationary, the sky solid, day 
independent of the sun, light of a source, etc. 

At what point in the eternal past the devil was 
made, and of what kind of material he was made, I 
do not pretend to know. Indeed, he is not my devil. 
My ignorance on these points, however, does not make 
the slightest difference. All I need to know is that 
he derived his existence and his powers from God, and 


124 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


that he is still under God’s control. That he is thus 
one of God’s creatures, I presume that few, if any, of 
my opponents will attempt to deny. Since, then, no 
evil effect can possibly result from any other than an 
evil cause, we are forced to admit that, if the devil be 
an evil effect, God is bound to be an evil cause. If 
God created the devil at all, he must, of necessity, 
have created all the elements, whether good or bad, 
that enter into this latter individual’s composition 
and character. This same remark is equally true of 
the serpent, of man, and of everything else. 

You object, however, that this view makes God the 
source all evil. It certainly does, and yet, as I shall 
fully prove in my next lecture, this is exactly what 
the Bible makes him. Indeed, to hold any other 
view would be to make God the creator of only about 
one-half of the universe, and to leave the balance to 
be produced at the manufacturing establishment of 
his equally powerful rival. This dualism or two-God 
theory has actually been adopted by the Persians, and 
by many others, among whom may be included the 
Two-Seed Baptists of our own country. By means of 
this theory, these dualistic theologians attempt to es¬ 
cape the otherwise unavoidable necessity of making 
their respective favorite gods the sources of all evil. 
This theory, however, involves the absurdity of hav¬ 
ing at the same time two Great First Causes, two Su¬ 
preme Eulers, etc. I do not know, therefore, which 
is in the worse condition, these dualists with their two 
gods, the one good and the other evil, or you with 
your one God, a mixture of good and evil. 

. Of necessity, everything in nature must be either 


THE CREATOR. 


125 


good or evil. Indeed, evil is nothing more nor less 
than the absence or the opposite of good, just as dark¬ 
ness is the absence or opposite of light, silence of 
sound, etc. From this it is evident that every good 
must, of necessity, have its opposite evil. It is equally 
evident, also, that evil is just as necessary in the 
economy of nature as is good, and that, of necessity, 
these two principles are very evenly balanced through¬ 
out the universe. When, therefore, you attempt to 
screen your favorite God from the charge of being the 
author of evil, by assuming as its author a bad God 
or devil, you make this latter personage a creator, just 
as necessary to the existence of the universe, and a 
ruler, just as necessary to its government, as you 
make your favorite God himself. You make the two 
gods absolutely necessary to each other. Neither the 
one nor the other can work alone. 

This, however, is simply the dualism or Buddhism 
which you so heartily condemn in the Persians, the Hin¬ 
doos, and others. The only difference between their 
form of Buddhism and your own is that they, by mak¬ 
ing their bad god self-existent and independent, do 
really screen their respective deific favorites from the 
charge of being the authors of evil, while you, by ab¬ 
surdly making your devil or bad god a created and de¬ 
pendent being, throw all the responsiblity of evil back 
upon his Creator and Sustainer. In this way you make 
your two-God theory or devil-dodge a total failure. 

When God had the materials ready of which to 
make the devil, he undoubtedly knew exactly what 
kind of being he wished to make of them ; and when 
he began to work upon these materials he must, of 


126 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


necessity, have either succeeded or Tailed in making 
such a being of them as he intended to make. If he 
succeeded, then, of necessity, the devil is just such a 
being as he intended that he should be. If he failed, 
then, of necessity, he was totally incompetent to per¬ 
form the work which he undertook to perform. How, 
then, can you condemn the devil for being what he 
is, without condemning God for making him what he 
is ? If the devil is a bad piece of work, who is re¬ 
sponsible for its badness? Certainly not the work 
itself. Its maker alone is evidently responsible. 
Either through design, or through inability to accom¬ 
plish any better design, he made it just what it is. 

You object that God did not make the devil just 
what he now is; that the devil changed—became an 
entirely different kind of being—after he left God’s 
hands. But could such a change have taken place in 
him unless the elements of that change had been im¬ 
planted in him, as part of his constitution, at the time 
of his creation? Was not that change an effect which 
was bound to have a cause ? If the effect was an evil 
one, was it not bound to have an evil cause ? The 
devil, however, not being as yet an evil being, evi¬ 
dently could not have brought to bear upon himself 
the evil cause that changed him to an evil bei ng. Of 
necessity, the elements of evil must have been either 
in his own constitution, as he received it from God, or 
in the external influences which were thrown around 
him, and which were also from God. Admitting, then, 
that there was a great change for the worse in the 
devil after the beginning of his existence, was not 
God himself responsible for that change? Could 


THE CREATOR. 


127 


anything different from the devil have resulted from 
the causes which produced him as he is, and which, of 
necessitv, were all of God? When making him, did 
God, or did he not, intend to make a permanently 
good being of him? If he did not, what are we to say 
of his intentions ? If he did, what are we to say of 
his utter inability—of his woful failure—to carry out 
his intentions? In either case, was not he a very un¬ 
safe person to be working up devil materials? 

When about to make the devil, God necessarily 
either did or did not know just what kind of being he 
was destined to ultimately become. If, as you teach, 
God is omniscient, he must, of necessity, have known 
exactly what the devil would become, and what harm 
he would do. The devil's entire prospective charac¬ 
ter, and entire prospective career, must have been 
clearly foreknown. As yet, however, the devil him¬ 
self lay scattered around in the form of raw material. 
While yet in that condition, he was evidently incapa¬ 
ble of thought, and hence, of necessity, utterly inca¬ 
pable of planning for himself any such character or 
any such career as God already foreknew that he was 
to have. In order to foreknow just what that charac¬ 
ter and that career were to be, it was absolutely neces¬ 
sary for God himself to fore-determine just what they 
should be. At any rate, the fact that, with the devil's 
future character and career clearly foreknown to him, 
he proceeded to make this latter personage, is proof 
positive that he made him expressly for that very char¬ 
acter and that very career. In doing this, God evidently 
rendered it utterly impossible for the devil to possess 
any other character, or to pursue any other career. If 



128 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the devil could, he doubtless would have possessed 
some other character, and pursued some other career. 
In that case, however, neither the character nor the 
career that God supposed he foreknew as that of the 
devil, would ever have existed at all; and this would 
have reduced God’s so-called fore-knowledge into mere 
guessing, and very poor guessing at that. God can¬ 
not possibly foresee or foreknow anything as actually 
existing, or as actually occurring in the future, until he 
has determined, by the exercise of his own almighty 
power, to make that thing inevitably exist, or occur. 
And thus it was with the devil. While he was still a 
pile of dirt, or other raw material, bis future character 
and career were fixed for him, as inevitable facts, by 
the Almighty himself. Is not God himself, then, the 
deliberate planner and producer of all evil? Is the 
devil anything more than a mere instrument, which 
God made to his own liking, and with which he per¬ 
forms his evil works? Is not God himself the great 
Arch-devil ? I defy any escape from these conclusions. 

If, on the other hand, God did not know what the 
devil’s character and career were to be, was he not a 
very ignorant God, and do you not lie when you teach 
that he is omniscient? Had so ignorant a being any 
right to be manufacturing devils and turning them 
loose upon us without knowing what they would 
be, or what they would do? You know very well 
that a being of infinite goodness would not have done 
this. Which does he lack, then, infinite knowledge 
or infinite goodness ? He cannot possibly possess both 
and yet act as his own followers teach that he has 
acted. 


THE CREATOR. 


129 


Again, when God had the materials ready of which 
to make Adam, Snake & Co., did he, or did he not, 
know what would be their respective characters and 
their respective careers? If he did know these 
things, must he not, of necessity, himself have pre¬ 
determined what those several characters and careers 
should be, and rendered it utterly impossible for them 
to be otherwise than they were? As yet. Adam, 
Snake & Co., existed only as a pile of dirt, or a bed of 
mortar; and it is evident that while yet in this condi¬ 
tion, they could not possibly have planned, for them¬ 
selves respectively, their own future characters and 
their own future careers. These things could not pos¬ 
sibly have been planned and pre-determined for them 
by anyone but God himself, who alone knew that 
these persons were ever to exist at all. In order, 
therefore, that their respective characters and careers 
should be exactly what he foresaw that they were to 
be, it was evidently absolutely necessary that he should 
render it utterly impossible for them to be otherwise. Of 
necessity, God’s perfect fore-knowledge of everything 
pertaining in any way to these persons must have ex¬ 
tended to all the changes that were ever to take place 
in their respective characters, and to all the sins that 
were ever to be committed by them, in their respt ciive 
careers; and the fact that God thus clearly foreknew 
that these changes were certainly to take place, and 
that these sins were certainly to be committed, is proof 
positive that he himself had planned these very 
changes, and these very sins, and had rendered it 
utterly impossible for them to be avoided. He could 
not possibly have fore-known that these things cer- 


180 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


tainly were to be, until some power capable of causing 
them to be had irrevocably determined that they 
should be. But there was no such power in existence, 
except himself. Indeed, he alone knew that any such 
persons were ever to exist as those in whose characters 
these changes were to take place, and in whose careers 
these sins were to be committed. If, then, there was 
anything wrong in either the characters or the conduct 
of Adam, Snake & Co., was not God himself the de¬ 
liberate planner and producer of that wrong? If he 
was not, who was ? 

If, on the other hand, God did not know what would 
be the characters and the careers of the persons he 
was about to make, was he not entirely too ignorant 
ever to be a successful Creator? Is it any -wonder 
that all his experiments—they could have been noth¬ 
ing else—proved utter failures? In any view of the 
case, God necessarily stands as the author of all evil. 
The only question is, did he produce evil through de¬ 
liberate design or through lamentable ignorance? Can 
my opponents answer this question? 

Besides all this, when he perceived that the devil 
had become evil, and that he was planning the eternal 
ruin of the inhabitants both of earth and of heaven, 
God, of necessity, either had, or had. not, sufficient 
power to prevent the evil designs of this arch-plotter 
from being carried into execution. If he had any 
such power he certainly did not use it; since, accord¬ 
ing to the testimony of his most zealous followers, he 
suffered the devil to lead to ruin one-third of the hosts 
of heaven, and to effectually provide for the ruin of 
nine-tenths or more of the inhabitants of earth. And 


THE CREATOR. 


131 


does not the fact that he quietly stood by and saw this 
wholesale ruin plotted and accomplished by one of his 
own creatures, without doing anything to prevent it, 
prove beyond all contradiction that he was willing it 
should be accomplished? To say the least of the 
matter, was he not jmrticejos criminis —an accessory 
both before and after the fact ? If, however, he had not 
sufficient power to prevent the execution of the devil’s 
wicked plots, was he not, and is he not still, a very 
weak God ? Was not the devil then, and is he not 
still, the more powerful of the two, and master of the 
situation? Would it not be prudent, then, to culti¬ 
vate the devil's friendship, instead of spending so 
much time and money upon a God who is unable to 
help either himself or us? The Bible teaches that 
there was once a war in heaven. Admitting this to 
be a fact, may there not be another war there some¬ 
time, and majr not the devil, who now has ten men 
to God’s one, be the victor? Better provide against 
such a possible contingency. 

Again, when God perceived that Adam, Snake & 
Co. were about to fall into sin, he evidently either had, 
or had not, sufficient power to prevent them from do¬ 
ing so. If he had such power he certainly did not 
use it, lie stood quietly by and saw them fall into 
sin, when he might, had he so wished, have prevented 
their fall by simply willing that they should not fall. 
The fact, therefore, that he did nothing to prevent 
their fall is proof positive that he was perfectly will¬ 
ing they should fall. And should we blame them for 
acting in accordance with his will? 

If, however, he really filled that they should not 


1S2 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


fall, then, of course, his failure to prevent their fall 
must have been the result of his utter inability to con¬ 
trol their actions. In this case was he not greatly to 
be pitied on account of his extreme weakness? If, as 
you teach, he was totally unable to preserve good one 
inexperienced snake, and two unsophisticated country 
people, all of his own manufacture, and all under his 
own direct control, can there be the slightest hope of 
bis ever being able to make good, and to preserve 
good, the almost countless millions of bad snakes and 
bad men that now demand his attention? Even with 
the aid of a million priests and a hundred million 
Bibles and other sacred books, is he not daily falling 
further and furthur behind with his work? Would 
it not be better, then, for him to transfer the whole 
business to his more enterprising and more successful 
rival, the devil? 

By strictly logical arguments, deduced from the 
testimony of the Bible itself, I have now proved that 
the attributes ascribed to God by his worshipers are 
totally inconsistent with one another, and with the 
known condition of things on earth. If he is infinite 
in goodness, he cannot will the existence of sin and 
of sorrow. If he is infinite in power, these things cannot 
exist contrary to his will. They do exist, however. 
Of necessity, therefore, he either wiils their existence 
or is unable to prevent it. In either case he is a total 
failure. It may be, however, that, in his wonderful 
goodness, he keeps sin alive for the sole benefit of the 
priests, and disease alive for the sole benefit of the 
doctors, whose respective professions would be gone 
if sin and disease were to cease among men. 


THE CREATOR. 


13S 


I have, also, proved that your attempt to lay all the 
responsibility of evil upon the devil is simply a vain 
and absurd subterfuge. Admitting—as no really in¬ 
telligent person does, however—that there is such a 
person as the devil, who made him ? Who gives him 
all his powers? Who makes and sends him all his 
recruits? Is he anything more than an instrument in 
the hands of God ? And does the fact that God uses 
an instrument with which to promote evil render him¬ 
self any the less responsible for that evil? Should I 
deliberately form an instrument with which to slav 
my neighbor, and should I actually slay him with 
that instrument, would anyone think of acquitting me 
and condemning the instrument? 

The devil, however, does appear to possess wonder¬ 
ful powers. Indeed, God seems to have given more 
power to him than he retained for his own use. At 
any rate, in all the games they have hitherto played, 
the devil has uniformly been the winner; and, in the 
games they are now playing, he seems to be having a 
wonderful “run of luck.” 

After they became enemies, God’s first move was to 
prepare a hell, and tumble the devil and his angels 
into it. The devil’s first move was to get right out 
again. This he probably accomplished by dropping 
through, since hell, as you all know, has no bottom. 
God’s second move was to make himself a man and a 
woman to serve him. The devil’s second move was to 
thwart tliis little enterprise by getting this primitive 
pair and their descendants to serve himself. God 
seems soon to have pretty well given up the struggle. 
At any rate, according to the best orthodox author- 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


134 

ities on the subject, his principal occupation lias long 
been making men and sending them to the devil. 

I also find that the Bible gives the devil a much 
better moral character than it gives God. Wishing, 
therefore, to be on the better as well as the stronger 
side, I have espoused the devil’s cause, and have writ¬ 
ten a little book in defense of his character. No other 
man ever dared write such a book. By this act, there¬ 
fore, I have won the favor of the devil, and hence can 
be of great service to my orthordox friends, who will 
stand sorely in need of my influence with him when 
they arrive in his dominions, as most of them ulti¬ 
mately will, if we are to give any weight to their own 
testimony against one another. Should I not be in, 
therefore, when any of them arrive in hell, let them 
state to the authorities that, on earth, they were special 
friends of Col. Kelso, and they will at once receive all 
the attention their circumstances may demand. The 
priests, in particular, should not neglect this precaution, 
as otherwise they are almost sure to be assigned to 
quarters uncomfortably warm. 

And now, in conclusion, I challenge any champion 
of any God to show me a single error into which I 
have fallen in this whole analysis of Deity as Creator. 
If no such error can be pointed out, why should I be 
so bitterly persecuted because of my teachings? My 
views are the result of long, honest, and thorough in¬ 
vestigations. I believe them to be correct, simply be¬ 
cause reason, science, and common sense compel me so 
to believe. Have my opponents any better reason to 
assign for their belief? If they have, what is it? 

I am charged with pulling down, and not building 



THE CREATOR, 


186 


up. But what is it that I pull down ? Truth cannot 
be pulled down, and error, no matter how old it may 
be, ought to be pulled down. The noxious weeds of 
error must be eradicated from the soil of the human 
mind, before the beautiful flowers of truth can flourish 
therein. 

It is true that I pull down, but it is not true that I 
do not build up. As darkness can be removed only 
by being driven out with light, so error can only be 
removed by being driven out with truth. In place of 
every error, then, which I pull down, I build up a 
truth. And is not the truth of more value than the 
error ever could have been ? When I take from you 
your God, by proving him to have no existence, I do 
you a real service, and you have no right to demand 
of me a real value equal to the imaginary value which 
you have hitherto had placed upon this imaginary 
possession. 


130 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


LECTURE FOURTH. 

THE SUPREME RULER. 

In regard to the old Hebrew God, who has been 
adopted by the Christians, and who, by them, as well 
as by the Hebrews, is assumed to be the Supreme 
Ruler of the universe, I now propose to prove the fol¬ 
lowing facts: 1. That he was once the tutelary di¬ 
vinity of the Hebrew r nation alone; 2, that he has a 
body; 3, that he is limited in his presence, in his 
knowledge, in his powder, and in his goodness; 4, that 
he is subject to human wants, appetites, and passions; 
5, that in his actions he is governed entirely by hu¬ 
man motives; 6, that he is the source of all evil; 7, 
that he has often broken his most solemn promises, 
practiced deception, and done other wicked acts; 8, 
that he has encouraged lying, robbery, slavery, polyg¬ 
amy, concubinage, and murder; 9, that he was once 
accustomed to pardon sins in return for roast beef and 
other kinds of food, of which he was fond; 10, that 
he sometimes required and accepted human sacrifices; 
11, that, in consequence of all these things, he cannot 
be the Supreme Ruler of the universe. All these 
things I propose to prove by the testimony of the 
Bible and of the Christian church. Since the same 
passages by which I prove one of these facts also 


THE SUPREME RULER 


137 


frequently prove several of the others, I shall not at¬ 
tempt to prove the facts separately. 

In Ex. xxi, 2-6, we read: “If thou buy an Hebrew 
servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh 
he shall go out free for nothing. ... If his mas¬ 
ter have given him a wife, and she have borne him 
sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be 
her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if 
the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, 
my wife, and my children; I will not go out 
free: Then his master shall bring him unto the 
judges: he shall also bring him to the door, or unto 
the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear 
through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.” 

From this we learn that God approved slavery- 
even the slavery of brethren to their brethren. We 
also learn that the brutal slave, who cared nothing for 
his wife and children, was permitted to go free, at the 
end of six years; while the good and loving husband 
and father, who could not bear the thought of leaving 
his dear ones, was rewarded for his goodness and af¬ 
fection by having his ears bored through with an awl, 
and by being made a slave forever. What would you 
think of this God, if, for the misfortune of being very 
poor, he should thus have you sold, for six years, as 
slaves, to your more fortunate brethren, and if, at the 
end of that time, he should compel you to leave your 
wives and your little ones, or have your ears bored 
through with awls, and yourselves made slaves forever ? 
And yet, would this treatment be any worse, if inflicted 
upon you, than it was when inflicted, for a similar 
misfortune, upon equally good and loving Hebrew 


133 


DEITY ANALYZED 


husbands and fathers? “If a man sell his daugh¬ 
ter to be a maid servant, she shall not go out as 
the men-servants do” (Ex. xxi,7). “Yet now our 
flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children 
as their children: and lo, we bring into bondage 
our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some 
of our daughters are brought into bondage already, 
neither is it in our power to redeem them; for .other 
men have our lands and vineyards ” (Neh. v, 5). From 
these passages we learn that God authorized fathers 
to sell their own children, especially their daughters, 
into slavery; and that the daughters, when thus 
made slaves, were not to go out free, at the end 
of six years, as were the men-servants. If poor 
men, among God’s chosen people, did not pay their 
debts by voluntarily selling themselves or their chil¬ 
dren into slavery, then God authorized their credit¬ 
ors to seize them, or their children, or both, and make 
slaves of them. This we learn from many passages 
like the following: “And if thy brother thatdwelleth 
by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee” (Lev. 
xxv, 39). “Now there cried a certain woman of the 
wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, 
Thy servant my husband is dead ; and thou knowest 
that thy servant did fear the Lord; and the creditor 
is come to take unto him my two sons to be bond- 
men ” (2 Kings iv, 1). What would you think of this 
God were he now to authorize men to sell their own 
children into slavery, and were he to authorize your 
creditors to make slaves of you and your children ? 
Would you still sing his praises ? 

In Lev. xxv, 44-46, we read: “Both thy bond- 




TIIE SUPREME RULER, 


139 


men, and thy bond-maids, which thou shall have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of 
them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. More¬ 
over, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn 
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their fami¬ 
lies that are with you. . . . And ye shall take 

them as an inheritance for your children after you, to 
inherit them fora possession, they shall be your bond- 
men forever.” From this we learn that God not only 
permitted his chosen people to traffic for gain in hu¬ 
man beings—in the sons and daughters of their neigh¬ 
bors—but also actually commanded them to do so, 
and declared that the persons thus reduced to slavery 
should be “bond-men forever.” He certainly ap¬ 
proved slavery, therefore, and fully intended that it 
should “forever” be practiced among men. He is 
certainly - responsible for all the abominations of 
slavery that have ever cursed those countries in 
which the teachings of the Bible have been accepted 
as of divine authority. The slaveholders of the South 
were certainly correct when they claimed that, accord¬ 
ing to the plain teachings of the Bible, slavery was an 
institution of divine origin, and that those who were 
attempting its overthrow were fighting against God 
and the Bible. 

In Is. xlv, 7, we read: “I form light, and create 
darkness; I make peace, and create evil.” From this 
we learn that God is as much the Creator of evil as 
he is of light or anything else. So in Amos iii, 6: 
“ Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not 
done it?” God seemed surprised that the people 
should look upon evil as having any other source 



I 


140 DEITY ANALYZED. 

than himself. Job ii, 10, says: ‘‘Shall we receive 
good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive 
evil?” Upon whom did Job look as the source of 
evil ? Mieah i, 12, says : “ For the inhabitants of 

Maroth waited carefully for good, but evil came down 
from the Lord unto the gate of Jerusalem.” If there 
had been no evil in God, could evil have thus come 
down from him? Ex. xxxiv, 14, says: “And the 
Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do 
unto his people.” Of necessity, that which God had 
thought to do unto his people must have been either 
a right or a wrong act. If it was a right act, then 
God repented of having thought to do right. If it 
was a wrong act, then God had thought to do wrong, 
and would actually have done so had not Moses 
shamed him out of his wicked intention. Is such a 
being a safe and competent person to rule the uni¬ 
verse ? 

In 2 Sam. xii, 11, we read: “Thus saith the Lord, 
Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine 
own house, and I will take thy wives before thine 
eyes and give them unto thy neighbor; and he shall 
lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.” And 
now, let me ask, do you truly believe that the infinite 
power that rules the universe ever made and executed 
so abominable a threat ? If not, how can you worship, 
as the Supreme Ruler of the universe, a being who, if 
we are to believe the Bible, actually did make it, and 
execute it? This threat was made against David, with 
whom God was angry. Instead of punishing the 
offender himself, however, God permitted him to live 
on in all his regal splendor, and, for the present, satis- 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


141 


fied his vengeance by killing one of David’s infant 
children. Having thus temporarily appeased his wrath, 
he fixed upon Absalom, one of David’s own sons, as 
his instrument with which to execute his evil inten¬ 
tions against David’s wives, who were guilty of no 
offense at all. At this time Absalom was a wonder¬ 
fully handsome, noble, and manly youth of nineteen— 
the idol of his father, the pride of the whole nation. 
Having, according to the chronology of the Bible, 
waited eleven years for this lad to attain full manhood, 
God took possession of him, and by almighty power 
irresistibly led him to commit the revolting act of pub¬ 
licly lying with his own father’s wives. In all that he 
did, Absalom was faithfully doing God’s will; and 
yet, after having thus forever blackened the previously 
fair name of this brave and noble young man, God 
had him and twenty thousand others remorselessly 
butchered, for no other offense than that of perform¬ 
ing his own will—of doing that which, by his own 
almighty power, he made it utterly impossible for 
them not to do. 

In this case, and in hundreds of other similar cases, 
without at all consulting the wishes of the women 
themselves, God disposed of them to whom he pleased, 
for the very vilest of purposes. And now, let me ask, 
what would the pure women of our own time—the 
faithful wives who worship this God—think of him if, 
to spite their husbands, he should have some other 
man take them, without their consent, and lie with 
them in open day, on the top of a house, in the sight 
of thousands of eager spectators? How would my 
good orthodox brethren like to have him treat their 


142 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


own wives, their own mothers, their own sisters, and 
their own daughters in that outrageous manner? And 
was not his conduct just as abominable when per¬ 
formed upon other women as it would be if performed 
upon our own ? And is he any better now than he 
was then? Is not the cause of virtue and morality 
injured by such blasphemous teachings? Will the 
people who believe in such a God ever try to be any 
better than he is represented as being? 

In 2 Sam. xxiv, 1, we read : “ And again the anger 
of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved 
David against them to say. Go, number Israel and 
Judah.” David did as God moved him to do, and 
then, to punish him for his obedience, God killed 
70,000 innocent persons. What could be more horri¬ 
ble in its cruelty, or detestable in its injustice? What 
harm was there in Davids taking a census of the peo¬ 
ple, especially when God himself moved him to take 
it? And, admitting that the act was a wicked one, 
why did God let David, the only offender, escape, and 
wreak his vengeance upon 70,000 innocent persons? 
Will my opponents please rise and explain? 

In Josh, vii, 24-26, we read: “And Joshua, and 
all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and 
the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, 
and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his 
asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; 
and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 
And Joshua snid, Why hast thou troubled us? the 
Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned 
him with stones, and burned them with fire after they 
had stoued them with stones. And they raised over 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


143 


nun a great heap of stones unto this day. So the 
Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger T 1 It 
seems that this Achan had concealed for his own use 
a portion of the plunder which Joshua and his band 
of robbers had taken on one of their marauding expe¬ 
ditions. For this act God did not, at first, have Achan 
himself punished, but had thirty-six innocent men 
3lain. The slaying of these men led to an inquiry 
which resulted in the discovery that Achan was the 
man for whose offense these men had been slain. 
Joshua, then, treacherously prevailed upon Achan to 
make confession. The 19th verse reads: “And 
Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, 
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession 
unto him, and tell me now what thou hast done; hide 
it not from me.” Achan did make confession, and 
then, together with his innocent children, his sheep 
his oxen, and his asses, he was cruelly stoned to death 
and then burned. 

Thus you see that because one of the plunderers 
kept back a garment and a little gold, the God that 
you worship had brutally butchered thirty-six inno¬ 
cent men, an entire family of innocent children, and 
even a number of poor dumb brutes. This is only one 
of many instances in which, for some trifling offense, 
committed by some other party, who was frequently 
permitted to escape, God had put to death innocent 
women, children, and dumb brutes. And yet you 
have the effrontery to say that this monster is the Su¬ 
preme Euler of the universe, and that he is infinite in 
justice and in mercy. Yon may sing the praises of 

such a God if vou wish, but I cannot. I would rather 

•/ 1 


144 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


praise the devil, who was never guilty of half so atro¬ 
cious an act 

In 2 Sam. xii, £, we read: 14 And I gave thee thy 
master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, 
and I gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; 
and if that had been too little, I would, moreover, 
have given unto thee such and such things.” At the 
time mentioned, David, to whom all these things were 
given, already had a harem well filled with wives and 
concubines. Instead, however, of reproving him for 
his polygamous habits, God encouraged and aided him 
to practice them on a more extensive scale, by thus 
making him a present of a whole houseful more of wives 
and concubines, all at one time. These women were 
the widows of Saul, one of David’s fathers-in-law. Of 
course, then, they were David’s own mothers-in-law. 
Their own wishes in regard to this transfer of them¬ 
selves, as so much property, to their son-in-law, were 
never consulted. This, however, was probably the 
best method of disposing of mothers-in-law. How 
would my opponents like to get rid of their mothers- 
in-law in this way ? 

When God was thus aiding and encouraging the 
practice of polygamy and concubinage, he must, of 
necessity, have regarded these things as either right 
or wrong; and since, as you teach, he never changes, 
he must, of equal necessity, regard them now just as 
he regarded them then. If he then regarded them as 
right, he must, of necessity, still regard them as right 
And if he regards them as right, are they not bound 
to be right? Could he be deceived in regard to their 
nature? Do you know better than he does what is 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


145 


right and what is wrong? If not, how dare you con¬ 
demn in the Mormons and others a practice which he 
has always aided and encouraged? If, on the other 
hand, at the time of which we are speaking, he re¬ 
garded these practices as wrong, then he undeniably 
aided and encouraged his chosen people to do wrong; 

• and without a decided change for the better, he must 
still be equally inclined to aid and encourage his fol¬ 
lowers in wrong practices. One or the other of these 
conclusions is inevitable, and, in either case, his influ¬ 
ence is on the side of immorality. 

u And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a 
wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms; . . 

So he w T ent and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; 
which conceived, and bare him a son” (Hos. i, 2, 3). 
Further on we learn that this lewd woman bore Hosea 
two other children, and that he then grew weary of 
her, called her by foul names, threatened to strip her 
naked in the streets, and drove her from his house. 
That he was living with her in open shame, without 
any pretense of marriage, we learn from the second 
and fourth verses of the next chapter, in which we 
read : “ Plead with your mother, plead ; for she is not 
my wife, neither am I her husband. . . . And I 

will not have mercy upon her children; for they be 
the children of whoredoms.” The children to whom 
this holy prophet was speaking, and upon whom he 
declared that he would not have mercy, w r ere his own 
children, begotten and born, as he says, in whoredom. 
Would not this holy man’s indignation at Gomer’s 
shameful conduct have appeared to better advantage 
if he had not himself been for many years her,equally 


146 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


lewd paramour? Why did lie see nothing wrong in 
her conduct until after she had borne him several 
children, and her beauty had somewhat faded ? May 
it not be that he had his eyes upon a younger and hand¬ 
somer woman of the same class, and that he quarreled 
with Gomer just to get rid of her, and to thus make 
room for the other woman? Be this as it may, lie 
certainly did, almost immediately, take to his embrace 
another lewd woman. In the first, second, and third 
verses of the next chapter we read : “ Then said the 
Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her 
friend, yet an adulteress. ... So I bought her 
to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of 
barley, and an half homer of barley. And I said 
unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou 
shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for 
another man : so will I also be for thee.” How won¬ 
derfully kind God was to Hosea, in thus always pro¬ 
viding him a lewd woman, whenever he perceived 
that this holv man wanted one! If he is so kind to 
my opponents, we can easily understand why they 
praise him so much. YTith what refreshing sim¬ 
plicity, too, this holy man of God tells us how much 
he paid as fee to this prostitute, and that, by paying 
in advance, be had her all to himself “for many 
days.” 

In 2 Tim. iii, 16, Paul says: “All scripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous¬ 
ness.” These bawdy-house accounts of Hosea’s libidi¬ 
nous adventures, which I stoop to notice only that I 
may expose them, constitute a portion of the God-in- 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


147 


spired scripture to which Paul refers. But what re¬ 
proof, what correction, do we receive from these ac¬ 
counts? If anybody is reproved or corrected by 
them, who can it be, unless it be those persons who 
dare condemn the God-approved, the God-commanded, 
practice of prostitution ? If anybody is instructed 
by them, who can it be, unless it be those holy men 
who deal with prostitutes, and who may learn from 
Hosea’s prudent example to pay in advance, and thus 
have the prostitutes all to themselves. Can my oppo¬ 
nents tell of anything else that can be learned from 
these inspired writings? 

If God regarded this cohabitation with a common 
hired prostitute as right in Hosea, how must he, un- 
less his views have changed, regard similar conduct in 
his present followers ? Can he regard it as otherwise 
than right? In this case, is not his influence on the 
side of immorality ? If, however, he regarded Hosea’s * 
conduct as wrong, did not he himself command that 
wrong conduct to be performed? And is not his in¬ 
fluence, in this case as in the other, on the side of im¬ 
morality? Has his character since Hosea’s time un¬ 
dergone any change for the better? If not, what 
assurance have we that he will not lead his present 
worshipers to do wrong just as he led Hosea ? Can 
such blasphemous teachings concerning God have any 
other than a direct tendency to destroy, in those who 
accept them, all the principles of morality and virtue? 

In Gen. ii, 17, we read: “But of the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; 
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
gurelydie.” If this language means anything at all, 


148 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


it evidently means exactly what it says. Here, then, 
God made a positive promise or threat which he cer¬ 
tainly never did fulfill, and which at the time he made 
it he must have foreknown that he never would ful¬ 
fill. In defiance of his unreasonable prohibition, 
Adam and Eve had the good sense and the pluck to 
eat all they wanted of that very fruit—the fruit which 
God knew they most greatly needed, and which he 
also knew that they certainly would eat; and yet, so 
far from dying on the day on which they ate the fruit, 
they lived on for nearly a thousand years, and then 
died of old age. Did not God, then, when he made 
this promise which he knew that he would never ful¬ 
fill, tell a deliberate falsehood? What say my oppo¬ 
nents? 

In 2 Kings xx, 1, God says : “ Set thine house in 

order, for thou shaltdie and not live.” This was said 
to Hezekiah, who was very sick, and who had asked 
of God what was to be the result of that sickness. 
In reply to this inquiry God used the language which 
I have just quoted. Hezekiah, however, did not die. 
He recovered his health and lived for many years. 
Here, then, God again made a positive assertion which 
proved to be false. In Jon. iii, 4, God also spoke 
falsely, when he declared in the most positive manner: 
“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” 
This promise was never executed; and since, when 
making it, God must have foreknown that he would 
never fulfill it, he evidently spoke a deliberate false¬ 
hood. 

In the 14th chapter of Numbers God declares his 
intention to violate his sworn promise to the Hebrews* 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


149 


In the 3(Mi verse he says, “Doubtless ye shall not 
come into the land concerning which I swear to make 
you dwell therein.” He here admits that he had 
made them a sworn promise to make them dwell in a 
certain land—a promise on the strength of which he 
had induced them to leave their comfortable homes in 
Egypt. Now, how T ever, after having drawn them out 
into a terrible desert, where they are utterly helpless, 
he declares, with a kind of fiendish exultation, that 
he has deliberately determined to break this solemn 
promise, and let them miserably perish in the desert. 
At the close of the 34th verse he uses these signifi¬ 
cant words: “And ye shall know my breach of 
promise.” This horrible threat he actually executed. 
He actually did violate his sworn promise, and actually 
did destroy many hundreds of thousands of the poor 
people who had trusted and followed him. And all 
this he did simply because the people had believed 
the report of his own messengers, who had been sent 
to spy out the band, and who had brought back 
an unfavorable report concerning it. Since, at the 
time of making the promise in question, God must 
have foreknowm that he would break it, he must, of 
necessity, have made it intending to break it. When 
discoursing upon God’s promises, why do our preach¬ 
ers never notice this promise? And why do they 
teach that he cannot lie, when the Bible so plainly 
teaches that he can ? 

In 2 Chron. xviii, 18-22, we read : “ I saw the Lord 
sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven 
standing on his right hand, and on his left. And the 
Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that 


150 


DEITY ANALYZED 


he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one 
spake saying after this manner, and another saying 
after that manner. Then there came out a spirit and 
stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. 
And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith 7 And he 
said, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth 
of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt 
entice him, and thou shalt also prevail; go out and do 
even so. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put 
a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and 
the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.” 

It seems that God had a quarrel with Ahab, king 
of Israel, and wished to destroy him, but was unable 
to do so unless he could entice him out of his strong¬ 
hold at Samaria. God, therefore, resorted to the means 
described in the passages above quoted. He sent out 
a professional liar whom he had with him in heaven, 
and by means of this person’s lies drew Ahab out and 
destroyed him. My opponents would, of course, call 
this Godly lying, and would praise God all the more 
for having practiced it, or for having had it practiced 
by one of his worshipers in heaven. Indeed, many 
of my opponents seem to be laboring faithfully to 
qualify themselves to serve God, when they reach 
heaven, in the same capacity in which this spirit served 
him. Ahab’s prophets were not to blame for what they 
said. Being inspired of God, they evidently thought 
the}' were telling the truth. They themselves were 
thoroughly deceived by this lying God, in whom they 
implicitly trusted. From all this it is clear that God 
promptly resorted to lying whenever it suited his pur¬ 
poses to do so. Has he ever abandoned this practice? 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


151 


From these same passages we also learn several 
other important facts. From the fact that he was 
seen, we learn that God is a visible object. From the 
fact that he was sitting, we learn that he has a body. 
He could not sit without one. From the fact that he 
was sitting upon a throne, we learn that he is a mon¬ 
arch, and hence opposed to republican institutions. 
From the fact that there were hosts “standing on his 
right hand, and on his left,’’ we learn that he is limited 
in his extent. From the fact that he had to inquire what 
the liar proposed to do, we learn that he is limited in 
his knowledge. From the fact that he was compelled 
to resort to lying in order to accomplish his purposes, 
we learn that he is limited in his power. From the 
fact that he did resort to means so base as lying, we 
learn that be is limited in his goodness. From the 
fact that he had a professional liar with him in heav¬ 
en, we learn that such liars go to heaven when they 
die. From the fact that he preferred the plan pro¬ 
posed by this liar to the plans proposed by any of his 
other worshipers, we learn that liars are very influen¬ 
tial personages in heaven. From this same fact we 
also learn that God would rather accomplish his diffi¬ 
cult undertakings by means of lying than by any 
oilier means. Indeed, from the fact that he did not 
call for any plan but one by which Ahab could be 
enticed or allured from his strong position, we learn 
that, from the first, God proposed to deal in deception 
alone. Finally, from the fact that, in this whole af¬ 
fair, he acted just as a mean, cowardly, and treach¬ 
erous man would act, under similar circumstances, we 
learn that, in his character, he resembles a mean, cow- 


152 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


ardly, and treacherous man. These are all very hard 
conclusions, and yet I defy my opponents, by fair and 
logical arguments, based upon the passages in ques¬ 
tion, to arrive at any different conclusions. 

Jer. xx, 7, says : “ O Lord, thou hast deceived me, 
and I was deceived.” Had God deceived him? If 
not, who inspired Jeremiah to write this lie? At 
another time, in language more forcible than polite, 
Jeremiah calls the Lord to account, as follows: “Wilt 
thou be altogether unto me as a liar? ” Ezek. xiv, 9, 
says: “And if the prophet be deceived when he hath 
spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that proph¬ 
et” Of necessity, this language must be either true 
or false. If true, did not God deceive the prophets? 
If false, did he not inspire Ezekiel to write a lie ? In 
either case, what kind of a being is God, and what 
kind of a book is the Bible ? 

From the first chapter of Exodus we learn that God 
rewarded two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, for lying 
to Pharaoh concerning the birth of Hebrew children. 
From several succeeding chapters, we also learn that 
God had Moses lie to Pharaoh by telling him that the 
Hebrews simply wished to go out a three-days jour¬ 
ney to hold a kind of religious festival or camp-meet¬ 
ing, whereas, in reality, they meant to run entirely 
away. We also learn that God made Moses lie, 
too, in regard to the jewelry and clothing of the 
Egyptians, which he declared that the Hebrews sim¬ 
ply wished to borrow for the festival in question, 
whereas they really meant to abscond with these 
things, and never return them at all. If God was un¬ 
willing to use honest means, was he not wofully want- 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


153 


ing in goodness? If he was unable to succeed by 
such means, was he not wofully wanting in power? 
In either case, was he not, as a God, a woful failure? 

From the second chapter of Joshua we learn that 
God rewarded Rahab for lying concerning the Hebrew 
spies whom she was concealing in her house. This 
woman was a harlot, or common prostitute, and this 
fact probably explains why God’s messengers made 
her house their stopping-place. 

When God wished Samuel to go to Bethlehem to 
anoint David king of Israel to succeed Saul, Samuel 
was afraid to go—afraid that Saul would kill him. 
God, therefore, instructed Samuel to go with a base 
lie in his mouth—to take a heifer and to declare that 
he had come peaceably to sacrifice unto the Lord. 
This we learn from 1 Sam. xvi, 1-5. 

In the eighth and ninth chapters of Romans, we 
find the following passages: “For whom he did fore* 
know, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the 
image of his Son, that he might be the first-born 
among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did pre¬ 
destinate, them he also called: and whom he called, 
them he also justified : and whom he justified, them 
lie also glorified. . . . For the scripture saith 

unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised 
thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and 
that my name might be declared throughout all the 
earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will 
have me rev, and whom he will he hardeneth. 

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same 
lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another 
unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


154 

wrath, and to make his power known, endured with 
much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de¬ 
struction: and that he might make known the 
riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he 
had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath 
called, not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles.” 
In Eph. i, 4, Paul also says : “ According as he hath 
chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame before him 
in love.” In 2 Thess. ii, 13, Paul still further says: 
“But we are bound to give thanks always to God, for 
you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through 
sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth.” 

From these and a vast number of other passages we 
learn that, before the foundation of the, world God 
predestinated a certain portion of the human race to 
salvation, and the balance to damnation ; and that he 
exerts such an influence upon all men that not an in¬ 
dividual can possibly escape his predetermined des¬ 
tiny. To those whom he has predestinated to salva¬ 
tion he gives power to believe certain absurd doctrines, 
and then, although he has already predestinated them 
to certain salvation, he pretends that he saves them 
because of their belief in these doctrines. From those 
whom he has predestinated to damnation he either 
withholds all power to believe these doctrines, or else 
makes them believe a lie, and then, although their 
dooms have all been unchangeably fixed since before 
the foundation of the world, he pretends that he damns 

them, some because of their unbelief in the absurd 
doctrines in question, and the balance because of their 


THE SUPREME RULER 


155 


belief in the lie which he makes them believe. All 
this is abominably partial and unfair. The faith of 
those who are predestinated to salvation is evidently 
no merit on their own part, since, like mere machines, 
they are simply made to believe. So, on the other 
hand, the unbelief in a so-called truth of some of 
those who have been eternally doomed to damnation, 
and the belief of the balance in a lie, are evidently no 
demerit on the part of the respective subjects of them, 
since, like mere machines, all these persons are made 
to be just what they are. Just as reasonably might 
God damn us for not flying, when he has given us no 
power to fly, as to damn us for not believing, when he 
has given us no power to believe. We would all fly 
if we could, and we would all believe and be saved if 
we could. So of those who believe a lie. It would 
be just as reasonable for God to make them blind and 
then damn them for being so, as to make them believe 
a lie and then damn them for believing it 

But does God, you ask, make certain persons believe 
a lie? Paul says that he certainly does, and that he 
does it, too, for the express purpose of having an ex¬ 
cuse for inflicting upon them the damnation to which 
he has already long since predestinated them. “And 
for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, 
that they should believe a lie : That they all might 
be damned” (2 Thess. ii, 11, 12). This makes the 
case a clear one, and at the same time makes God a 
great deal worse than the devil. 

In order that these people may believe a lie, they 
must, of necessity, have a lie to believe. Without 
the lie the strong delusion would be an utter failure. 


156 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


Bat who furnishes them the lie? Who couhl furnish 
it except God himself? He alone foreknew that there 
was ever to be any such lie, and he could not possibly 
have foreknown this had he not himself predeter¬ 
mined to prepare that lie. 

Since the elect were chosen before the foundation 
of the world, their salvation evidently does not de¬ 
pend upon anything meritorious in themselves. They 
attain salvation simply because God has made it ut¬ 
terly impossible for them to miss it. So of the non¬ 
elect. Since the doom of damnation was unchange¬ 
ably fixed upon them millions of ages before they 
were born, their damnation evidently does not depend 
upon anything demeritorious in themselves. They are 
damned simply because God has made it utterly im¬ 
possible for them not to be damned. 

You may claim that he damns these persons in ad¬ 
vance of their creation on account of the sins which 
he foresees that they are to commit after they are cre¬ 
ated. This, however, is not the teaching of the Bible; 
and then, how can God possibly foresee that certain 
sins are to be committed by certain persons, unless he 
himself unchangeably predetermines that those very 
sins shall be committed bv those very persons? Does 
he not, of necessity, just as much predetermine the 
characters and the acts of these persons as he prede¬ 
termines their existence and their final damnation? 
Whoever, then, ultimately lands in hell, does so sim¬ 
ply because God made him expressly for that very 
destiny, and made it utterly impossible for him to at¬ 
tain any other. This makes God a thousand times 
worse than the devil, since God, who could do other- 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


167 


wise, makes men for the express purpose of seeing 
them writhe, forever and forever, in the unutterable 
torments of fire and brimstone; while the devil, who 
is himself also helplessly suffering the same terrible 
torments, simply receives those whom-God makes for 
him and sends to him. This is undeniably the most 
horrible and blasphemous doctrine ever taught among 
men. There is no doctrine more clearly taught in 
the Bible, however, and so long as the Bible continues 
to be accepted as good authority on such subjects, my 
Presbyterian, friends, and others who advocate this 
horrible and blasphemous doctrine, need have no fear 
that it can ever be overturned. But who are those 
persons whom God is thus irresistibly deluding into 
believing a lie in order that they may all be damned? 
What assurance have my orthodox opponents that 
they are not the very persons thus deluded? Would 
it not be just as fair and just as proper for God to de¬ 
lude them into believing a lie, “that they all might be 
damned,” as it would be for him to thus delude any¬ 
body else? Indeed, by reading the whole chapter 
from which I have quoted, you will perceive that the 
language in question cannot be applied to unbelievers. 
These are to be damned, it is true, but, as we learn 
elsewhere, their damnation is to be administered, not 
because they have believed a lie, but because they 
have not believed anything at all. 

Paul describes those to whom he applies the language 
in question, as sitting in the temple of God, claiming 
to be the people of God, and arrogating to themselves 
the powers and the prerogatives of God. They are. de¬ 
scribed as a portion of the church who are to fall 


16b 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


away from the church, but who are to claim to be the 
church, and who are to be loud and arrogant pro¬ 
fessors of religion. 

The victims, then, of God’s strong delusion, must, of 
necessity, constitute some church organization. All 
theologians admit this fact, and differ only when they 
attempt to fix upon the particular sect or division of the 
church that are thus deluded and damned. Of course 
no sect fix upon themselves. Though they all think 
it a glorious thing for any other sect to be thus tricked 
and damned, none of them like to undergo the opera¬ 
tion themselves. 

It will not do to fix upon some small and obscure 
sect, since the Bible describes the falling away as a 
very great one. The description cannot be filled by 
anything less than the entire Catholic or the entire 
Protestant division of the Christian church. All the¬ 
ologians recognize this fact. The Catholics, therefore, 
claim, and ver) r clearly prove, that the Protestants cor¬ 
respond exactly with the description given by Paul of 
those who were to fall away from the church, and who 
were to be so atrociously tricked by God, and then 
damned. The Protestants, on the other hand, return 
this charitable (?) compliment by claiming, and by just 
as clearly proving, the same things in regard to the 
Catholics. For my own part, I suspect that both 
parties are correct—that both Catholics and Protest 
ants are being deluded into believing a lie, “ that they 
all might be damned.” Should my view of the mat¬ 
ter prove to be correct, then we will all be damned 
together—some of us for what we do believe, the rest 
for what we do not believe. In any view of the case, 


THE SUPREME RULER 


159 

those who escape damnation must, at any rate, be few 
and far between. Since God is professedly a deluder, 
no man can have any assurance that his own religious 
faith is not a strong delusion sent on him by God, as 
a pretext for damning him. Let us all, then, prepare 
to be damned. 

In the twentieth chapter of Exekiel God declares 
that, for a pretext to render his people desolate, he 
gave them “statutes that were not good, and judg¬ 
ments whereby they should not live;” and that he 
polluted them, and made them burn their own chil¬ 
dren as sacrifices. To assert that the Supreme Ruler 
of the universe ever did any such things as these is 
to assert something so supremely absurd, and so 
monstrously blasphemous, that it requires no comment. 

In Gen. iii, 8, 9, we read: “And they heard the 
voice of the Lord God walking in the Garden in the 
cool of the day : and Adam and his wife hid them¬ 
selves from the presence of the Lord God among the 
trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto 
Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou ? ” This is 
a plain historical statement, in which figurative lan¬ 
guage would be entirely inadmissible. It is all bound 
to be literally true, if any part of it is. Since, then, 
God had a voice, he must, of necessity, have had 
vocal organs. Since he was walking, he must, of ne¬ 
cessity, have had feet and legs, and a body to keep 
the legs in place. Since he chose “the cool of the 
day” for his walk, he evidently wished to avoid 
the heat of the day, as too oppressive. In this mat¬ 
ter, then, he displayed a human, or, at least, a physical 
weakness. Finally, since he was walking about inside 


160 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


of the garden, he must, of necessity, have been less in 
extent than was the garden; and, of equal necessity, 
all that portion of the universe which lay outside of 
the garden must have been totally destitute of his 
presence. Indeed, from the fact that “ Adam and his 
wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord 
God, among the trees of the garden,” he must, of ne¬ 
cessity, have been present in only a part even of the 
garden. 

Since Adam alone was to dress this garden and 
keep it in order, it could.not have been a very large 
one. Inside of this small garden, however, Adam 
and his wife managed to hide themselves from God’s 
presence. In order to do this, they had, of necessity, 
to be where he was not present, and their place of 
concealment had to be unknown to him. Had he 
been present where they were hidden they would 
not have been hidden ‘ from” his “presence,” and 
had he known where they then were, they would not 
have been hidden from him at all. It is not said that 
they tried to hide from him, but that they actually did 
so hide ; and that, in order to find them, he was under 
the necessity of calling to them. Here, then, both 
God’s presence and his knowledge were confined with¬ 
in very narrow limits. 

In Ex. xxxi, 17, we read : “ For in six days the 
Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day 
he rested and was refreshed.” Had he not been 
weary, he could not possibly have thus rested and 
been refreshed, Here, then, we again have positive 
proof that he was subject to a human or animal in¬ 
firmity, weariness, and that, like men and other ani- 



THE SUPREME RULER 


161 


mals, he required rest and refreshment. And dare my 
opponents claim that a person thus subject to animal 
wants and infirmities ; is the infinite force that holds 
the planets in their orbits, the universe in its order? 

In Gen. viii, 20, 21, we read: “And Noah builded an 
altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, 
and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings 
on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; 
and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse 
the ground any more for man’s sake.” From the fact 
that God “smelled,” we learn that he had a nose, and 
from the fact that he smelled the material odors of 
roast meats, we learn that his olfactories were acted 
upon in the same way as those of men. Indeed, the 
Bible plainly teaches that the only design of burnt- 
offerings was to gratify his sense of smell, and to thus 
put him in a sufficiently good humor to pardon the 
sins of the people, and to do their bidding generally. 

In Jon. iii, 10, we read : “ If so be they will hearken, 
and turn every man from his evil way, that I may re¬ 
pent me of the evil which I purpose to do unto them, 
because of the evil of their doings.” This represents 
God as being in doubt as to whether the people of 
whom he was speaking would or would not repent; 
and this uncertainty on his part in regard to that mat¬ 
ter is proof positive that he was limited in his knowl¬ 
edge. He proposed to repent, provided they would 
repent first; and he proposed to do evil because they 
had done evil. From this we learn that his actions 
are controlled not by infinite wisdom, but by the ac¬ 
tions of men. In repenting he displayed a human 
weakness; and in doing evil because others did, ho 


162 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


displayed a want of goodness, and a base, human mo* 
ti ve. 

From the 32.1 chapter of Deuteronomy we learn that, 
in a fit of jealousy, God went into an uncontrollable 
fur} r , and declared that he would destroy all his people 
without any distinction of age, sex, or condition. When, 
however, Moses had reasoned with him on the sub¬ 
ject, and had shown him the disgraceful nature of his 
proposed course of conduct, he concluded to break his 
word and to back down from this proposed wholesale 
slaughter. lie did not back down, however, because 
of the enormity of the proposed crime, but because 
he feared that, if he committed it, his enemies would 
make fun of him and claim to themselves the honor (?) 
of his atrocious act. The 26th and 27th verses read : 
“I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would 
make the remembrance of them to cease from among 
men. Were it not that I feared the wrath of the en¬ 
emy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves 
strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high 
and the Lord hath not done this.” From this it is clear 
that, if he could have been sure that he himself should 
have the honor (?) of the proposed destruction of his 
people, he would certainly have destroyed them. I 
know not which is the more abominable, the proposed 
crime or the motives which induced him to forego the 
pleasure of committing it. On various other occa¬ 
sions he fell into similar fits of jealousy, and declared, 
in the most positive manner, that he would utterly de¬ 
stroy his chosen people. Moses, however, who was by 
far the better reasoner of the two, and who, by a 
strange coincidence, was the only one ever present on 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


163 


any of these occasions, always succeeded in shaming 
him out of his proposed vengeance by representing to 
him what his enemies would say of his proposed con¬ 
duct. Dare you say that such a God is the Supreme 
Ruler of the universe? 

In the 20th chapter of Ezekiel, God refers to these 
events, and again declares that it was only through the 
fear of being disgraced in the eyes of his enemies that 
he backed down from executing his oft-repeated and 
unconditional threats to destroy his chosen people. 
He then goes on to say that, being afraid to execute 
these threats, he had sworn to take vengeance upon 
his people in some other way ; and that, in order to 
have a pretext for what he proposed doing to them, he 
himself had caused them to commit many wicked acts. 
The 25th and 26th verses read: “Wherefore I gave 
them also-statutes that were not good and judgments 
whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in 
their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through 
the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make 
them desolate, to the end that they might know that 
I am the Lord.” Was not this rather a strange method 
by which to convince them that he was the Lord?” 

In Ex. xxxiii, 3, we read: “For I will not go up in 
the midst of thee: for thou art a stiff-necked people: 
lest I consume thee in the way.” Here God is repre¬ 
sented as being limited in his presence, and as being 
afraid to trust himself with his chosen people, lest in 
one of his frequent fits of fearful fury he might en- 
tirel}' lose control of himself and murder them all. 

I do not know which was most to be pitied, this insane 


164 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


God or the people who were constantly exposed to his 
insane fury. 

In Ps. cvi, 23, we read: “ Therefore he said that he 
would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood 
before him in the breach to tarn away his wrath, lest 
he should destroy them.” Here God is represented as 
very frankly admitting that he was completely under 
the control of Mcses. 

In Ezek. xxii, 30, 31, we read: “And I sought for 
a man among them that should make up the hedge 
and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I 
should not destroy it, but I found none. Therefore, 
have I poured out my indignation upon them: I have 
consumed them with the fire of my wrath.” From 
this it is clear that, in his fits of frantic fury, God had 
no power to control himself; that he did not really 
wish to destroy the people in question, and that he 
tried to find some one to play Moses with him—to 
coax him not to be so naughty; but that, finding no 
one to play that part, he actually had committed the 
horrible deed which he mentions, and from the com¬ 
mission of which he had so earnestly hoped that some 
man, more powerful than himself, would prevent him. 
Poor, insane God ! What a monstrous character his 
own inspired writings give him. With such a God I 
would not exchange places. 

In all these cases God is represented as being sub¬ 
ject to uncontrollable fits of anger, jealousy, fury, fear, 
ete.—all the lowest of human passions—and as saying 
and doing things worse than were ever said or dona 
by the most despicable of human tyrants. . Notwith¬ 
standing all this, however, Moses, according to his own 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


165 


account, could lead this terrible God hither and thither 
at pleasure, and with the utmost ease vanquish him in 
every argument. 

And now, let me ask, could any man thus control 
the action of the illimitable and inconceivably glorious 
power that sustains, in their unspeakably sublime 
revolutions, the billions of billions of mighty worlds • 
and systems of worlds that crowd every portion of in¬ 
finite space? Does this infinitely mighty power ever 
go into sudden and uncontrollable fits of anger, jeal¬ 
ousy, fury, or fear? Does it ever take walks, break 
promises, smell roast meats, commit murders, etc.? 
Who that can and that dare use a particle of reason 
or common sense upon the subject but is bound to 
answer all these questions emphatically in the nega¬ 
tive? What, then, is this old jealous, furious, blood¬ 
thirsty, and yet cowardly, being—this beef-lovingGod 
of the Bible—but an old pagan myth, a remnant of 
primitive superstition and ignorance? 

In the thirty-second chapter of Genesis we learn 
that God in a materialized body, like that of a man, 
had a rough-and-tumble wrestling match with Jacob, 
who proved to be more than a match for him. From 
this we learn that God has a body, and a very weak 
one at that. From the fact that he did not know who 
Jacob was, until Jacob told him, we learn that God 
was limited in knowledge; and from the fact that, 
after his defeat, he wanted to go away from Jacob, 
we learn that, at that time, he was not away from 
Jacob—that he was not present anywhere else in the 
universe. How, then, did the universe run while he 
was thus absent? 


166 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


In Gen. xviii, 21, we read : “ I will go down now, 
and see whether they have done altogether according 
to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I 
will know.” Here God is represented as having a 
body, and as being limited, both in his presence and 
his knowledge. Just before this, he had, like a hun¬ 
gry man, eaten a substantial meal at Abraham’s 
table. If, then, his body was not a real body, com¬ 
posed of matter, what was it, and how was it able to 
contain the real food which he then ate? Besides 
this, when he changed himself back to an invisible 
spirit, what became of the food which he had eaten? 
Did it all drop down in a mass upon the ground, just 
as he had eaten it, or did it also change to spirit, like 
himself, and become invisible? Did the infinite 
power that rules the universe ever thus assume the 
body of a man ? Was it ever thus limited in its ex¬ 
tent? And did it ever thus eat heartily of bread, 
meat, and milk ? 

“ And the Lord was with Judah ; and he drave out 
the inhabitants of the mountains; but could not drive 
out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had 
chariots of iron ” (Jud. i, 19). Could a few chariots 
of iron have thus baffled the infinite power that rules 
the universe ? 

In the last six verses of the thirty-third chapter of 
Exodus we have a dialogue between God and Moses. 
In this dialogue Moses asks to see God’s glory. God 
informs him that his (God’s) face is too glorious for a 
mortal to gaze upon ; that the sight of it would be cer¬ 
tain death to the beholder; but that his back parts, being 
far less glorious, can bo seen with comparative safetv. 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


167 


and that he is perfectly willing to exhibit these parts. 
Before the show begins, however, Moses is required 
to stand back in a cleft of the rock, so that he can see 
nothing except what is directly in front of him. While 
getting ready to show the parts promised, God holds 
one of his hands over Moses’ eyes, lest Moses may see 
some more glorious parts. When all is ready, God 
takes away his hand, and actually does make an inde¬ 
cent exhibition of his back parts to the delighted gaze 
of the so-called meek old Moses. Where was Com¬ 
stock while this was taking place? 

And now, let me ask, can you. have the face to 
claim that the infinite power that rules the universe 
ever came down thus upon a small mountain upon 
this little earth, and thus made an indecent exhibition 
of its back parts, to gratify the morbid curiosity of 
one old man ? What would you say of such a story 
if it were told concerning some other god ? The cus¬ 
tom of exhibiting only the back parts of gods, and of 
pretending that their faces were too glorious to be 
seen, was once quite common in nearly all countries. 
It is still said to prevail in Thibet and Japan, in 
which countries living men are worshiped as gods 
From this custom our Bible story undoubtedly takes 
its origin. Many men, too, who have not claimed to 
be gods, but who have claimed to be special favorites 
and companions of their respective gods, have put on 
vails, and then pretended that their own faces had be¬ 
come too glorious to be safely seen by common mor¬ 
tals. This trick was well calculated to impose upon 
the credulity of ignorant and superstitious men. 
Moses practiced it with great success. 


168 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


u And I will give this people favor in the sight of 
the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass that when 
ye go ye shall not go empty. But every woman shall 
borrow of her neighbor, and of her tnat sojourneth 
in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and 
raiment; and ye shall put them upon your sons, and 
upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Eyp- 
tians” (Ex. iii, 21, 22). By reading the whole story 
of which these passages are a part, we learn that God 
instructed Moses to lie to the Egyptians and make 
them believe that he merely wished to lead his people 
pie out a few miles to hold a religious meeting, after the 
holding of which he would return. We also learn that, 
by his almighty power, God made the Egyptians be¬ 
lieve this and look favorably upon the Hebrews who 
wished to borrow jewelry, clothing, etc., for this pre¬ 
tended meeting; that they kindly loaned all their 
most costly jewelry, clothing, etc., to their Hebrew 
friends, who were expected to return these things in 
a few days; that the Hebrews after having thus, by 
God's orders, played this wholesale confidence game 
upon their kind and confiding Egyptian friends, guests, 
and neighbors, fled the country loaded with spoils thus 
treacherously obtained; and that when Pharaoh pur- 
sured these worse than robbers, God treacherously de¬ 
stroyed him and his whole army. And now, I ven¬ 
ture the assertion that, no matter what your professions 
of belief may be, not one of you is so totally desti¬ 
tute of reason and common sense as to really believe 
that the illimitable power that keeps untold billions 
of mighty worlds all in perfect order ever thus in- 


THE SUPREME RULER. 169 

structed a lot of thieves to treacherously rob a vast 
number of kind-hearted women and children. 

In Ezek. xxxix, 10, God says that his people 11 shall 
spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed 
them.” This form of robbing, being performed in the 
way of retaliation upon enemies, was not so bad as was 
the so-called borrowing affair which I have just de¬ 
scribed. In a case like this, I, being an Infidel, might 
perhaps be induced to do a little robbing myself. I 
trust, however, that my opponents, being believers, 
could not be induced to do so, and that no thought of 
earthly gain has ever had anything to do with their be¬ 
ing the worshipers of this robber God. Be all this 
as it may, however, does the power that rules the uni¬ 
verse ever authorize robbing at all ? 

In Ex. xxxii, 27-29, we read: “ Thus saith the Lord 
God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, 
and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the 
camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man 
his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the 
children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: 
and there fell of the people that day about three thou¬ 
sand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves 
to-day to the Lord, even every man upon hi3 son, and 
upon his brother, that he may bestow upon you a 
blessing this day.” What could be more horrible 
than this? Three thousand—or, as many of our 
Bibles have it, twenty-three thousand—bleeding hu¬ 
man sacrifices offered to God in one day as the price 
of his blessing! And God, like a ghoul, accepted 
this horrible gift—this monstrous mass of ghastly 
corpses—as a pleasing sacrifice, and in return for it 


170 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


bestowed his blessing upon the horrid human butch¬ 
ers who so readily offered it. 

And yet, in this soul-sickening case, the blood- 
besmeared murderers upon whom God bestowed his 
blessing were themselves guilty of the very same 
offense for which they thus so cruelly and so treach¬ 
erously butchered their poor unsuspecting sous, broth¬ 
ers, neighbors, and companions. Moses had been ab¬ 
sent nearly six weeks, professedly spending this time 
in God r s company on the top of a mountain. During 
his absence his brother Aaron was left in command of 
the people. While thus acting as commander-in-chief 
Aaron made, for the people to worship, a golden calf, 
which was, indeed, as harmless a God as they could 
have worshiped. Instead, however, of punishing 
Aaron, the prime leader in this affair, God made him 
high priest, and had mercilessly butchered many thou¬ 
sands of comparatively innocent persons, whose only 
offense was that they had obeyed Aaron’s commands. 

And this is the God, all unchanged and unchange¬ 
able, who was forced upon our ancestors, and whom you 
—simply because you were not born to any other God— 
continue to blindly worship. None but the mentally 
blind could worship this personification of nearly 
everything that is truly monstrous. Since this terri¬ 
ble God is utterly unchangeable, w r hat assurance have 
vou that he will not, on some occasion in the near 
future, as the price of his blessing to you, require you 
thus in cold blood to cruelly and treacherously butcher 
your sons, your brothers, your neighbors, and your 
companions? Would such a requirement be any 
more horrible, if now made of you, than it was at the 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


171 


time in question when made of the Hebrews? Would 
it not, of necessity, be just the same? If, then, God 
should thus require you, in cold blood, to butcher all 
of your own children and other dear ones, would you, 
or would you not, obey his command? If you would 
obey it, then you are consistent followers of this bloody 
God, and are samples of what the teachings of the 
Bible tend to make of men. If you would not obey 
it, then you are hypocrites, and not true and obedient 
followers of this bloody God ! Nothing short of a 
perfect willingness to butcher his own son would sat¬ 
isfy this blood-thirsty God in Abraham’s case; and 
nothing short of a similar willingness, on your part, to 
butcher your own sons will satisfy him in your case. 
Remember that he never changes. Abraham was 
willing to butcher his own son, and that willingness 
wa 3 imputed to him by God for righteousness. God 
may, or may not, command you thus to butcher your 
own children. Whether he does, or does not, ever 
command you to do this, however, you must at all 
times—if you would be righteous in his eyes—be per¬ 
fectly willing to do it in case he should so command 
you. This is the plain teaching of the Bible, and if 
it is a pernicious doctrine, then, of necessity, the Bible 
is a pernicious book. Put yourselves in the place of 
either the murderers or the murdered, and how does 
this case appear? And you sing praises to this terri¬ 
ble God, and persecute me so bitterly because my 
manly soul revolts from the worship of so bloody a 
monster. Does the infinite power that rules the uni¬ 
verse ever command men thus in cold blood to treach- 


172 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


erously butcher their sons, their brothers, their neigh¬ 
bors, and their companions? 

In Josh, yi, 21, we read: “ And they utterly de¬ 
stroyed all that was in the city’', both man and woman, 
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the 
edge of the sword.” For a long list of similar butch¬ 
eries, see the entire book of Joshua, and especially 
the tenth chapter. By the direct command of God, 
Joshua invariably thus butchered all, without any 
distinction of age, sex, or condition. Of every city 
that he took, it is said that he “utterly destroyed all 
the souls that were therein ; he left none remaining. 

. . . He utterly destroyed all that breathed,” etc. 

All these murders were committed, too, not for any¬ 
thing that the poor defenseless victims had done, but 
simply because God wanted their lands for his chosen 
band of robbers and murderers. The history closes 
as follows: “And all these kings and their land did 
Joshua take at onetime; because the Lord God of 
Israel fought for Israel ” (Josh, x, 42). How can you 
have the face to say that the illimitable force or power 
that rules the universe was ever this blood-thirsty 
“ Lord God of Israel ? ” 

In the thirty-first chapter of Numbers we have an 
account of the destruction of the Midianites by the 
command of this same fearfully blood-thirsty God. In 
its soul-sickening atrocity, this butchery eclipses all 
others of which we have any account in the history of 
the world. The soldiers who had been sent out 
against Midian slew all the Midianitish men, who 
seem to have been totally unprepared for such an at. 
tack. The women and children, however, were spared 


THE SUPREME RULER 


173 


by the soldiers and brought in as captives. Because 
these helpless captives had been thus spared, Moses 
was very angry, and going to meet the soldiers, he 
said to them : “Have ye saved all the women alive? 
How therefore kill every male among the little ones, 
and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying 
with him. But all the women children that have not 
known man by lying with him, keep alive for your¬ 
selves.” In order to ascertain which ones of those 
women had known a man,, and which ones had not, 
the butchers were, in many cases, evidently under the 
necessity of making an examination of the nameless 
parts of the bodies of those women. A public exam¬ 
ination, so revolting to all the instincts of female mod¬ 
esty, can only be hinted at here. 

When this revolting examination was over, how¬ 
ever, when the virgins had by this means been dis¬ 
covered, and when they had been separated from the 
other women, then the cold-blooded, the soul-sicken¬ 
ing, wholesale butchery began, of the wives, the 
mothers, the little male infants. The signal was 
given. The air was rent with the deafening yells of 
the murderers, and the piercing shrieks of their help¬ 
less victims. A hundred thousand or more were to be 
butchered. Picture the scene as now being enacted 
before your eyes. The little ones cling to their 
mothers, and plead for protection which the mothers 
cannot give. On their bended knees, the mothers im¬ 
plore mercy, not for themselves, but for their poor 
little babes. Knowing no such thing as mercy, how¬ 
ever, God’s servants, by his order, cleave the heads of 
these poor helpless mothers from their shoulders, 


174 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


pierce their tender bosoms, crush in their skulls, cut 
their throats, or rip open their bowels. Thousands at 
once of infants are torn from the arms of their 
mothers, hurled by their feet in the air, and their poor 
little heads crushed upon the stones. Vast heaps of 
warm, quivering corpses cover the ground. Great 
pools of dark, smoking blood are collecting in all the 
low places, and a fearfully sickening odor arises from 
this the most horrible of all slaughter-pens. Yes, pict¬ 
ure to yourself, if you can, the unutterable horrors of 
this scene; picture to yourself, if you can, your own 
mother, your own sisters, your own wife, and your 
t vvn children as being thus brutally butchered ; then, 
if you can, shout hallelujahs to the God who is having 
it done. In the name of humanity, however, do not 
ask me to praise such a monster. 

In a poem entitled “The Devil's Defense,” I have 
depicted this whole affair as follows: 

He ord’reth his band, with a bloody hand, 

To butcher both young and old ; 

To make the land, like a waste of sand 
Where the billows once have rolled. 

They hasten to do as the Lord doth command, 

Like demons let loose, they la}* - waste the whole land; 

Alas for the victims! wherever they turn 
Destruction awaits, while their villages burn. 

Great volumes of smoke, like a vast floating pall, 

Hang dark o’er the valleys, the mountains, and all; 

From the depths of their darkness arise on the air 
Such terrible yells and such screams of despair, 

That all the damned spirits and demons of hell 
Could never this scene in its horrors excel. 

Of the strong and the brave but a few now’ remain, 

Their bodies lie scattered all over the plain; 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


175 


Those few are surrounded; like wild bejists at bay. 

They rush on their murderers, they yell and they slay. 

But beaten by numbers, their eyes gleaming fire, 

They scream their defiance, they fall and expire. 

Now burst forth anew on the smoko-burdened air, 

More terrible wailings of utter despair; 

Old women, whose locks are as white as the snow, 

Are butchered and left to be food for the crow'. 

The fond mothers flee with their babes at their breast, 

Oh ! could they save these, they’d endure all the rest; 

But flight Is in vatu, by God’s chosen men 

They are caught and conveyed to a vast slaughter-pen. 

A signal is given—around them there rains 
A shower of blood mixed with their babies’ crushed brains. 

Ohl horrible! horrible! maddening sight! 

Haste! haste I ye wild darkness, and hide it in night 1 
The poor mothers cling to the bodies yet hot, 

They gaze in the eyes, but are recognized not; 

The lips that so lately were wreathed in a smile. 

All mangled and gory still quiver awhile; 

Death’s pallor creeps over each poor little face. 

The heart-tlirobbings cease, and the eyes glaze apace. 

The mothers see this, and are now glad to die, 

No longer they struggle, no longer they cry ; 

Their throats are now cut, and their blood, like a spout, 

On their babies’ dear faces comes gushing right out; 

Their bodies unburied encumber the sod, 

And this is all done by the orthodox God. 

After witnessing this unspeakably horrible butchery 
of their mothers, their married sisters, and their little 
brothers, thirty-two thousand virgin girls were di¬ 
vided, for the vilest of purposes, among the mur¬ 
derers—the priests, the soldiers, and the citizens all 
coming in for a share of them. For his own share, 
God received thirty-two—to be used, of course, by the 
priests, as his proxies. 


176 


DEITT ANALYZED. 


And this, the most hideous of ali monsters, is the 
God, all unchanged and unchangeable, that you ’wor¬ 
ship. This is the God for whom you erect so many of 
those gorgeous resorts of pride, vanity, bigotry, and 
fashion called churches. This is the God for whom 
you keep up whole armies of worse than useless priests. 
This is the God to whom you offer those buncombe 
addresses of yours which you call prayers. This is 
the God whom you bamboozle with flattery just as 
the Hebrews used to bamboozle him with roast beef. 
And yet this God was never meant to be the God of 
any people except the Hebrews. For them alone was 
he invented. This fact is made clear by a vast num¬ 
ber of such passages as the following: 

“ And I will establish my covenant between me 
and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, 
for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee 
and to thy seed after thee (Gen. xvii, 7)- “ And ye 

shall be my people, and I will be your God ’’ (Jer. xxx, 
22). “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy 
God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar 
people unto himself, above all the nations that are 
upon the earth ” (Deut. xiv, 2). “And ye shall be 
holy unto me : for I the Lord am holy, and have sev¬ 
ered you from other people, that ye should be mine ” 
(Lev. xx, 26). All these passages, which were either 
spoken directly by God’s inventors or put into his 
mouth by them, indicate a covenant or contract by 
which the contracting parties mutually bind them¬ 
selves to be exclusively each other’s. This contract 
of exclusiveness was as binding upon the one party as 
upon the other. If by its provisions the Hebrews 


THF. SUPREME RULER. 


177 


were bound to confine themselves to this one God f 
then, of necessity, by the same provisions, he was just 
as much bound to confine himself to this one people. 
Indeed, whether applied to God or to the people, the 
word holy means simply set apart or exclusive. To be 
holy unto God, then, means neither more nor less than 
to be set apart to him—to be exclusively his. No one 
can be holy at all without being thus set apart or 
exclusively devoted to some particular person, people, 
use, or thing. When, therefore, God declares himself 
to be holy, he simply declares himself to be thus set 
apart or exclusive. He tells the Hebrews that they 
must be exclusive to him, and as a reason for requir¬ 
ing this exclusiveness on their part he declares that he 
is thus exclusive. He does not say to whom he is 
thus set apart or exclusive, but the connection renders 
it impossible for him to mean anybody but the He¬ 
brews. Had he meant to be the God of all nations he 
would not have been holy or exclusive to any of 
them. By never becoming the God of any other peo¬ 
ple he kept his part of the covenant, and nothing 
enraged him so much as for the Hebrews to break 
their part of it by becoming the people of some other 
god. With this explanation you can easily under¬ 
stand all such passages as the following: 

“ Seemeth it but a small thing unto you that the 
God of Israel hath separated you from the congrega¬ 
tion of Israel ?” (Num. xvi, 9.) “ For they call them, 

selves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the 
God of Israel ” (Is. xlviii, 2). “So now the Lord God 
of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his 
people Israel, and shouldst thou possess it? Wilt 


178 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth 
thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God 
shall drive out from before us them will we possess ” 
(Jud. xi, 23, 24). 

These last passages were spoken by Jephthah to 
the king of the Amorites. From these passages we 
learn that Jephthah did not doubt that Chemosh was 
a real God, standing in the same relation to his chosen 
people, the Amorites, as that in which Jehovah stood 
to his chosen people, the Hebrews. Jephthah evi¬ 
dently believed that Chemosh could just as truly give 
lands to his people as Jehovah could give them to his. 
Indeed every nation was supposed to have its peculiar 
or exclusive tutelary divinity. Molech, Chemosh, 
Baal, Jehovah, Jupiter, etc., were all divinities of this 
kind. How much better, then, have you done in 
adopting for your God the tutelary divinity of the 
Hebrews than you would have done had you adopted 
the tutelary divinity of any other tribe of semi-bar¬ 
barians? Can you show a worse record for any other 
God than I, from the Bible, have shown for yours? 
If you can, what god is it, and in what does the supe¬ 
rior badness of his record consist ? 

You may claim that your God, unlike most other 
gods, never required and never accepted human sacri¬ 
fices. The Bible, however, positively declares that he 
did require them, and did accept them. In Jud. xi, 
30, 31, we read : “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto 
the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver 
the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall 
be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my 
house to meet me, when I return in peace from the 


THE SUPREME RULER. 


179 


children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I 
will offer it up for a burnt-offering.” My opponents 
will hardly deny that God knew full well what the 
burnt-offering thus rashly promised by Jephthah 
would prove to be. If he had any fore-knowledge at 
all of the future he must have known exactly what it 
would be. Indeed, since he had control of all future 
events he certainly had it in his power to make it be 
just what he wished it to be. This power he doubt¬ 
less exercised. If, then, he had not wished it to be a 
human being, would he not have either rejected Jeph- 
thah’s offer, or have brought it about that some crea¬ 
ture other than a human being should be the first to 
meet Jephthah on his return ? Had he willed it to bo 
otherwise than it was would it not have been other¬ 
wise ? Be all this as it may, however, he, accepted 
the offer, and, on the strength of that offer, delivered 
the Ammonites into Jephthah’s hands. On his return 
home Jephthah was first met by his only daughter, 
whom he dearly loved, but whom according to his vow 
he was bound to butcher and roast as an offering to 
God. He informed her of his vow, and she expressed 
her willingness to be thus butcherd and cooked and 
served up on God’s table, but asked a delay of two 
months, which was granted. The balance of the story 
we learn from the 39th verse, which says : “And it came 
to pass at the end of two months that she returned 
unto her father, who did with her according to his 
vow which he had vowed.” If God had not been per¬ 
fectly willing that this vow thould be fulfilled, would 
he not, during those two months, have released Jeph¬ 
thah from the obligations of the vow? Under these 


180 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


circumstances, then, does not the fact that he permit¬ 
ted such a sacrifice to be offered to him prove conclu¬ 
sively that the offering was an acceptable one ? Pict¬ 
ure to yourself this God sitting quietly upon his 
throne watching Jephthah as he cuts his daughter’s 
throat, catches her blood in a basin, takes out her 
heart, her liver, and her other viscera, and finally 
roasts her upon the altar. Yes, picture this to your¬ 
self, and then, if you can, shout this monstrous God’s 
praises. 

In the twenty-first chapter of 2 Sam. we learn that 
God required seven innocent children to be offered to 
him as sacrifices to atone for an offense committed by 
their grandfather some thirty years before. Although 
five of these children were his own step-sons, David 
had this horrible sacrifice offered. The ninth verse 
says: “Arid he delivered them into the hands of the 
Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before 
ths Lord. 1 ’ From the next verse w r e learn that the 
friends of the children were not permitted to take 
their dead bodies down for burial, since the mother of 
two of them, to keep the birds and beasts of prey 
from feeding upon the bodies of her poor murdered 
children, lay upon the hard rock near them and 
guarded them day and night from the time of barley 
harvest, when they were hanged, until the rains of au¬ 
tumn began to fall. Then, nothing remained of them 
but their bones, which had fallen down and lay scat¬ 
tered on the ground as they fell. Farther on, we learn 
that these bones were afterwards gathered up and 
buried. God positively demanded this horrible sacri¬ 
fice before he would release the land from a long and 


THE SUPREME RULER, 


181 


terrible famine with which he wa3 afflicting it. After 
the sacrifice was offered, however, he removed the 
famine. The fourteenth verse closes as follows: “And 
after that God was entreated for the land.’' 

The other five children, being full orphans, had no 
fond mother to thus guard their decaying bodies. 
Their step-father, David, a man after God’s own heart, 
was in his harem reveling with his many wives and 
concubines, while the bodies of these poor murdered 
orphans, whose protector he should have been, were 
thus decaying in the sun and the rain. 

Picture to yourself the unutterable anguish of that 
loving mother as she keeps her lone vigils, day and 
night, upon the hard rock, for long weary months, 
while the bodies of her poor murdered children are 
slowly dropping to pieces before her face. Picture to 
yourself your own innocent children thus murdered 
and thus denied the right of burial by this adopted 
God of yours. Picture yourself as watching by them 
day and night, for long weary months, while their 
bodies slowly drop to pieces before your eyes. Yes, 
picture all this to yourself, and then, if you feel like 
doing so, break forth in shouts of hallelujahs to the 
unutterably hideous monster that had it done. In 
the name of humanity, however, do not ask me to 
join you in orgies so horrible as such shoutings, un¬ 
der such circumstances, would certainly be. 

And now, in all candor, please answer, have I not 
fully demonstrated that this God—this monster of 
the Bible—is a hideous invention with which priests 
frighten the people, and not the sublime and illimita¬ 
ble power that rules the universe? 


m 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


' 

LECTURE FIFTH. 

THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 

In former lectures I showed that all the gods of the 
world were originally assumed or invented simply to 
account for the various phenomena of nature, the 
real causes of which primitive men, in their extreme 
ignorance, could neither perceive nor understand. 
After having been thus assumed or invented, how¬ 
ever, all these gods were of course invisible, intangi¬ 
ble, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. Beings 
so mighty, and yet so mysterious, were naturally 
enough, regarded with intense awe mingled with fear 
and yet men. not being able to communicate with 
them, were in doubt as to the surest methods of win¬ 
ning their favor, or of avoiding the effects of their 
almost constant anger. 

In order to remove this doubt, men attempted in 
various ways to come into communication with the 
gods. Some attempted to reach heaven, the supposed 
dwelling-place of the gods, by ascending high moun¬ 
tains ; and, if we are to believe the Bible and other 
sacred books, many of them succeeded in this at¬ 
tempt, or at least succeeded in getting within commu¬ 
nicating distance of heaven. Moses accomplished 




THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


188 


this feat on Mount Sinai. The great mass of man¬ 
kind, however, living in valleys or on plains, were 
unable thus to reach heaven, or to even get within hail¬ 
ing distance of it. To the great body of mankind, 
therefore, there were only two methods by which the 
desired communications could be carried on. One of 
these was to invent a third order of beings, with wings, 
whose business it should be to fly back and forth be¬ 
tween earth and heaven, and bear messages in both 
directions. The other was to induce the gods them¬ 
selves to descend to the earth, and thus put themselves 
within the reach of men. In most countries both of 
these methods were in common use. The winged 
beings, thus employed, were called angels, or infe¬ 
rior gods. 

Having resolved to bring the gods to the earth, 
men resorted to various methods by which to accom¬ 
plish this object. In the primitive conditions of so¬ 
ciety that then prevailed in nearly all countries, the 
obtaining of food was the one great object of life. 
Hungry men would do more for food than for anything 
else. Knowing this fact, and supposing that, in this 
respect, the gods were like themselves, most men were 
accustomed to lay baits for them, or to allure them 
down with various kinds of food. Flesh, being the 
principal food of the people, was generally used for 
god-bait, and this was usually burnt, in order that its 
odors, ascending to heaven, might reach the gods, and 
attract them to the spot whence the odors came. This 
method of god-baiting was generally a very successful 
one. In the earlier part of their respective careers, 


184 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


all the gods, yours not excepted, were wont to be 
brought down by these baits. 

When, however, men became somewhat advanced in 
civilization, when they themselves began to place a 
higher value upon wealth, splendor, and public honors 
than they placed upon presents of food, they naturally 
enough supposed that the gods underwent a similar 
change. They therefore ceased to lay meat-baits for 
the gods, and began to allure them down by erecting 
for them gorgeous mansions called temples, churches, 
etc., by making them costly presents of gold, precious 
gems, etc., and by bestowing upon them the most ex¬ 
travagant public honors. By these means all the gods 
who have survived the attacks of modern science are 
still successfully brought down. 

Sometimes the gods were called down only tempo- 
rarily, and were permitted to return to heaven as soon 
as the business was transacted for which the call had 
been made. At other times they were induced to re¬ 
main, foi y ears at a time, among their respective sets 
of worshipers. Some of those who thus remained 
tooK up their abode in living animals, others in images 
of wood, §tone, or metal j and others still in boxes or 
little secret rooms prepared especially for them in the 
temples and churches. For a long time the God of 
the Hebrews, whom you have adopted, dwelt thus in 
a little room called the most holy place, in the temple. 
This little room was purposely placed near the altar, or 
kitchen fire-place of the temple, so that, without being 
exposed to the gaze of vulgar eyes, this God might 
regale himself upon the savory odors of beef, mutton, 
etc., that were daily roasted on this altar for his espe- 




THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


185 


cial benefit. In most of the civilized countries of the 
world men have now pretty generally abandoned the 
expensive custom of thus regaling their gods, and yet 
these mj'sterious beings are supposed still to take pos¬ 
session of the houses erected for their use, just as 
martins and other birds are wont to take possession of 
boxes and little houses erected for their use. Our 
own country is full of god-houses supposed to be thus 
occupied. 

In all these cases, however, the gods were all more or 
less unsatisfactory. None but priests could deal with 
them, or comprehend their natures and their wishes. 
Indeed, so capricious and so ill-natured were most of 
these gods that they could not be kept, much of the 
time, in anything like a reasonably good humor, even 
by their own chosen priests, who offered to them daily 
tons of roast beef and other good things furnished by 
the poor, overtaxed people. The God of the Hebrews, 
in particular, although the greatest consumer of beef 
on record, was nearly always in a towering rage about 
some trivial thing or another. Indeed, so far from 
seeming to be in sympathy with the human race, the 
gods generally seemed to be enemies to mankind, 
even to the people who most bountifully fed them, 
and who most devoutly worshiped them. Although, 
for the sake of roast beef and other good things, they 
would consent to dwell among men, yet between 
themselves and men there were no kindred ties, no 
common sympathies. Not knowing how to approach 
them in an acceptable manner, men were always inad¬ 
vertently offending them. When offended, too, these 


180 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


gods were wont to vent their wrath indiscriminately 
upon the innocent and the guilty. 

Under such circumstances men, naturally enough, 
began to feel the need of mediators—of persons re¬ 
lated, by kindred ties and by common sympathies, 
both to the gods and to themselves; of persons who 
could understand the wants and the infirmities of men, 
and at the same time know how to approach the gods 
in an acceptable manner. An order of beings half 
god and half man would be just the things desired, 
provided such beings could be produced. And why 
could they not be produced? Why could not the 
gods be induced to cohabit with the daughters of men, 
and produce these much-desired beings? The con¬ 
ception of such an idea was perfectly natural, and as 
soon as men had conceived it they began to hope that 
such cohabitation would take place. They also began 
to conceive ideals of what kind of beings ought to re¬ 
sult from such cohabitations, should they actually 
take place. Various gods were consulted upon the 
subject, and, through their prophets, these gods ex¬ 
pressed their intention, on some suitable occasion in 
the future, to beget themselves a son or two each 
upon human mothers. 

The poets of various countries, taking up these 
vague but popular predictions, sung of the glorious 
time coming, when the son of God should be born in 
their own respective nations. The people, too, were 
on the look-out for the coming of such a personage; 
each nation, of course, expecting him to appear, as 
predicted by their own prophets, among themselves, 
and not among the people of any other nation. When, 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


187 


therefore, any great hero, statesman, or philosopher 
arose in any country, he was sure to he fixed upon by 
many of his countrymen as the son of God. This 
was especially the case with eminent men who chanced 
to have been born in respectable families to unmarried 
women. Indeed, it was assumed that the gods would 
rarely, if ever, condescend to cohabit with any but 
first-class virgins. With these virgins, however, they 
finally became so intimate and their sons became so 
common that, in some countries, laws had to be en¬ 
acted forbidding any unmarried woman, who became 
a mother, to claim a god as the father of her child. 

The sons of gods became quite numerous in nearly 
ail countries, and their rival claims became the source 
of much dissension and bloodshed. None of them 
were ever accepted as genuine deities by the intelli¬ 
gent portion of the people among whom they re¬ 
spectively appeared, and many of them were executed 
as malefactors. When any one of them was thus ex¬ 
ecuted his followers, of necessity, had either to admit 
that he was a mere man unable to save his own life, 
and that themselves were the dupes of an impostor, 
or else to set up the claim that his death entered in 
as an essential part of his own mysterious plan of 
saving the human race, or at least a certain portion of 
them, from the fearful wrath of the old god, his 
father. Such a claim has been set up for their de¬ 
ceased leader by the respective followers of over a 
dozen of these executed personages. Of these so- 
called saviors, I have chosen Je us as the subject of 
this lecture and the next. This selection I make, not 
because I regard his claims to deityship as any stronger 


183 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


than are those of Chrishna, Prometheus, and others, 
but simply because he is one of the adopted Gods of 
my own country. 

, According to all the so-called orthodox teachings 
on the subject, Jesus was not only the son of God, but 
was, also, at the same time, God himself. Of necessity, 
then, he must have been, at the same time, his own 
father, and his own son. Of equal necessity, he must 
have been two distinct individuals, and at the same 
time only one individual. Besides these monstrous 
absurdities and utter impossibilities, he must, also, of 
equal necessity, have been the maker of his own 
mother. Before considering him in these various re¬ 
lations and conditions, I wish to consider what was 
his mission upon earth. As all Christians will admit, 
this was to redeem mankind, or at least the elect, from 
the effects of what is called the fall, and to restore 
them to the lost favor of God. 

According to the teachings of the Bible, our first 
parents, Adam and Eve, were at first two naked sav¬ 
ages, so inconceivably ignorant that they did not even 
know that they were naked; and in this disgustingly 
degraded condition—in this his own likeness and im¬ 
age—God intended that they should always remain. 
The serpent, however, or, as some have it, the devil, 
being a better friend to them than was their maker, 
persuaded them to partake of that most necessary of 
all fruits, the fruit of the tree of knowledge. They 
did partake of this fruit, and yet, so far from dying 
on that very day, as God, to intimidate them, had de¬ 
clared that they certainly should, they lived on nearly 
a thousand years, and then died, not from the effects 



THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


189 


of eating the fruit in question, but from extreme old 
age. They fell, however, from their God-like condi¬ 
tion of ignorance and nakedness to a condition which 
rendered possible the light, the knowledge, and the 
civilization of the present time. 

By this terrible fall, as it is strangely called, brought 
about by a serpent which God himself had made, and 
which he had declared to be “very good,” men lost 
the favor of God, became the objects of his most fear¬ 
ful wrath, and the heirs of a never ending hell. To 
redeem them from all the effects of this so-called fall, 
to restore them to the God-like condition in which they 
were before the fall, was the mission of Jesus; and 
bravely did he labor to accomplish this mission. He 
strictly forbade his followers to sow, to reap, to make 
clothing, to build houses, or to take any thought what¬ 
ever for this morrow as to what they should eat, what 
they should drink, or wherewithal they should be 
clothed. He made it a crime to lay up wealth, or to 
retain what might be obtained through inheritance. 
He discouraged industry of all kinds and taught his 
followers to depend for subsistence on the spontaneous 
productions of nature, which he seemed to fully be¬ 
lieve that God would never fail to abundantly supply. 
He himself strolled about the country in a filthy con¬ 
dition, wearing only such old garments as chanced to 
be given him by the people. He ate with unwashed 
hands, slept out of doors, and associated with the very 
dregs of society. Sometimes he was almost starved, 
and at other times, by his intemperance in eating and 
drinking, he acquired for himself the rather unenvi¬ 
able distinction of being a “glutton and a wine-bib- 


190 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


ber.” In his principles he was, to the full extent of 
the term, a communist; and, so long as his followers 
were permitted to do so, they were full communists— 
“ they had all things common.” In short, with all his 
good qualities—and he had many—his life was what 
would now be called the life of a tramp or vagrant, 
and had his teachings and his examples been fully 
carried out, mankind would, indeed, have been to-day 
fully restored to the God like condition in which our 
first parents were before the fall. We would all have 
been naked savages, but this fact would have been no 
drawback to our perfect happiness, since we would 
have been too ignorant to know that w r e were in that 
condition. That we are not in that blissful and God¬ 
like condition is due to what you stigmatize as In¬ 
fidelity. 

From all this it is clear that the redeemership of 
Jesus depends upon the literal truthfulness of the 
entire story of creation. If there never was any such 
creation as that story describes; if there never was 
any such flat and stationary earth; if there never was 
any such firmament or solid sky; if there never was 
any such Garden of Eden ; if there never was any such 
tree of knowledge; if there never was any such man 
made of mud, and woman made of bone; if there 
never was any such walking and talking serpent, then, 
of necessity, there never could have been any such 
fall of man. If there never was any such fall, then, 
of equal necessity, there never could have been any 
redemption from such fall, or any such redeemer as 
Jesus is represented as having been. You are com¬ 
pelled either to swallow the whole absurd story of 





THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


191 


creation, in its strictly literal sense, or else to admit 
that Christianity is a monstrous imposition. I defy 
any escape from this conclusion. When, therefore, 
in preceding lectures, I proved the story of creation to 
be utterly false, I also, at the same time, proved that 
the entire Christian religion is, at best, founded upon 
an absurd pagan fable. 

If, however, in order to save Christianity we admit, 
as we certainly must, that the whole story of creation 
is literally true, that there actually were such a flat 
and stationary earth, such a solid sky, such a tree of 
knowledge, such a mud man and bone woman, such a 
walking and talking serpent, such a fall of man, etc., 
then we have before us the rather remarkable sight 
of an omniscient God, with a full fore-knowledge of 
exactly what they will severally do and severally be, 
making a man, a woman, and a serpent, and pro¬ 
nouncing them “very good,” and yet, at the same 
time, predetermining to go into an uncontrollable rage 
with them, and to eternally damn them and their pos¬ 
terity, for doing and being what he himself predeter¬ 
mines that they inevitably shall do and shall be. 

Had it been possible for Adam, Eve, and the ser¬ 
pent to fail doing exactly what God foresaw they 
would do, and to fail being exactly what he foresaw 
that they would be, then he might not have foreseen 
anything at all in relation to them. In that case, what 
he thought he foresaw might never have come to pass, 
and then, so far from proving to be omniscient, he 
would have proved to be a mere guesser at future 
events, and a very poor guesser at that. 

In order to foresee any future event God must, of 



192 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


necessity, render it utterly impossible for that event 
not to occur. Of course, then, he himself must have 
predetermined that Adam, Eve, and the serpent should 
inevitably commit whatever sins he foresaw that they 
would commit. At any rate, the Bible clearly teaches 
that, before the foundation of the world, God did pre¬ 
determine who should be righteous, and who should 
be unrighteous; who should be saved and who should 
be damned. Every man’s character, then, and his 
final destiny being thus, from all eternity, unalterably 
fixed for him by God himself, it evidently becomes 
utterly impossible for any man to avoid either the 
character or the final destiny which were thus prede¬ 
termined for him, and for which alone he was created. 
God can foresee nothing except what is to be, and 
“ what is to be will be.” 

The Bible also teaches, as do all orthodox Chris¬ 
tians, that, before the foundation of the world, God 
predetermined that Jesus should be the redeemer of 
mankind, or of so many of them, at least, as were pre¬ 
elected to salvation. In order, however, to predeter¬ 
mine this redeemership for Jesus, it was absolutely 
necessary for God also to predetermine that lost con¬ 
dition of mankind, from which Jesus was thus to 
redeem them. I defy any escape from this conclu¬ 
sion. 

When, therefore / God had caused men to fall he 
began to damn them for having fallen. All this was, 
of course, just as he had foreseen that it would be, and 
just as he had predetermined it should be. For about 
four thousand years, according to Bible chronology, 
God seems to have devoted himself almost exclusively 



THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


193 


to tlie work of making, and destroying, and damning 
men. Then, after having had millions of cattle, sheep, 
and goats butchered and roasted before him to appease 
his wrath and gratify his olfactories ; after having had 
whole nations of men, women, and children butchered 
for being just what he himself bad made them; after 
having for the same reason filled the vast, the inde- • 
scribably horrible, caverns of hell with billions upon 
billions of his helpless creatures whom, before the 
foundation of the world, he had predetermined to tor¬ 
ment forever and forever, in the hottest flames of fire 
and brimstone, he proceeded to beget himself a son, 
upon a poor unmarried woman, and then agreed that 
if men would commit the horrible crime of murdering 
this harmless, though illegitimate, son, he would take 
them back into his favor, and would not punish them 
any more with eternal damnation for the little fruit 
which Adam and Eve had eaten four thousand years 
before. Having predetermined that men should mur¬ 
der his son, he, of course, so brought it about that they 
did murder him. As a reward for having committed 
this crime, God then made them, or at least the elect 
of them, heirs of salvation. Why God could not for¬ 
give men their sins and save them from damnation as 
well without this murder as he could with it I am not 
able to say. Ask any orthodox minister of the gos¬ 
pel, however, and he will doubtless explain the matter 
to your entire satisfaction. And now show me, if you 
can, in all paganism, a more absurd ora more atrocious 
doctrine than is this doctrine of the fall of man, and 
the atonement for that fall. What doctrine could 
show God’s character in a worse light? 


194 


' DEITY ANALYZED. 


In Gen. iii, 11, we read: “Who told thee that thou 
wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I 
commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?” From 
this it is clear that God did not wish men to have suffi¬ 
cient intelligence to even know that they were naked. 
And has he since then changed for the better, and be¬ 
come a friend to human knowledge? If not. is he not 
of necessity still an enemy to such knowledge? 

In Gen. iii, 22, 23, the Lord God says to the other 
Gods: “ Behold, the man is become as one of us, to 
know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his 
hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live 
forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from 
the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence 
he was taken.'’ These passages, which constitute posi¬ 
tive proof of the former existence of a plurality of 
Gods, show conclusively why it was that God wished 
to keep men forever in the depths of the most pro¬ 
found ignorance. He feared intelligent men, and well 
he might, since very few such men ever serve him, 
and when they do they invariably serve for pay. 
Every intelligent minister of the gospel knows that 
this is a fact. 

And now I w r ish to consider in what sense Jesus 
was the son of God. If in a figurative sense only he 
was the son of God, then he was only one of many 
such sons, and must, of necessity, like each of the 
others, have had a human father. If, on the other 
hand, he was literally the son of God, then, of neces¬ 
sity, God must in a strictly literal sense have begotten 
him. We will examine these two senses separately. 

In Gen. vi, 1, 2, we read : “And it came to pass, 



THE MESSIAH OK SAVIOR. 


195 


« « r * • » 

when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, 
and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of 
God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; 
and they took them wives of all which they chose.” 
So Job i, 6, says: “Now there was a day when the 
sons of God came to present themselves before the 
Lord.” John, also, i, 12, says: “But as many as 
received him, to them gave he power to become the 
sons of God.” Luke also, iii, 38, says: “Which was 
the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was 
the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” From 
all these, and a vast number of other similar passages, 
we learn that God had many sons. Butin what sense 
were they his sons? Few Christians, if any, will 
claim that any of the persons mentioned in these pas¬ 
sages were, in a literal sense, the sons of God. They 
were evidently mere men, all of whom, except Adam, 
had human fathers. They became the sons of God 
only by being adopted or elected as such. 

And is this the only sense in which Jesus was the 
son of God ? That it is clearly appears from many 
passages ia the New Testament. In Matt, xxiii, 9, 
Jesus says: “And call no man your father upon the 
earth : for one is your Father which is in heaven.” 
In ignoring his own earthly father, and acknowledging 
only his heavenly Father, Jesus did no more than he 
here strictly commands all other men to do in regard 
to their respective earthly fathers, and their heavenly 
Father. For himself, he claimed no nearer relationship 
to God than he requires all other men to claim for 
themselves. He did not denv that he and every other 
man had an earthly father, but he regarded, and wished 


190 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


others to regard, the tie that binds a man to his earthly 
father, as no tie at all when compared with the tie 
that binds him to his heavenly Father. For ignoring 
his own earthly father, Jesus had also another very 
excellent reason. Being born of an unmarried woman 
he probably did not know who his father was; and, if 
he did know, that knowledge was evidently a family 
secret. Besides this, that father had entirely ignored 
any relationship to him, and had left his mother to 
suffer disgrace alone, or to escape it, if she could, by 
setting up the old plea by which many before her had 
attempted to escape similar disgrace, that her child 
was the son of a god, and that she was still a virgin. 
Whether his mother ever did set up for him any such 
claim or not is a matter which we have no means of 
determining. If she did, then it was but natural that, 
for her sake as well as his own, he should strive to sus¬ 
tain that claim. 

Be all this as it may, however, Jesus just as studi¬ 
ously avoided acknowledging his mother as he did 
acknowledging his father. He never did admit that 
he was Mary’s son. He never did call her mother. 
When he addressed her at all he simply called her 
“woman.” He acknowledged none of the kindred 
ties of this world. Indeed, the ideal “ kingdom of 
heaven ” which he wished to establish on earth seems 
to have been that perfect communism in which “all 
things” are “common;” in which “they neither mar¬ 
ry, nor are given in marriageand in which, conse¬ 
quently, few men either know or care who their indi¬ 
vidual or earthly fathers may be, but in which all are 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


197 


regarded as equally the children of one great common 
or commune Father in heaven. 

In Matt xii. 47-50, we read: “When one said unto 
him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand with¬ 
out desiring to speak with thee. But he answered 
and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? 
and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth 
his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my 
mother and my brethren: for whosoever shall do the 
will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my 
brother, and sister, and mother.” On this, and on 
every other occasion, Jesus ignored all kindred ties 
according to the flesh. This he did, not because he 
had no such ties, but because he wished to lose sight 
of all these individual, and, as it were, accidental ties, 
in what he regarded as the infinitely higher and 
stronger tie that bound him to God and to God’s peo¬ 
ple. In the same sense in which he denied his mother 
and his brethren he denied his father, and in no other 
sense. 

Had he been willing, under any circumstances, to 
acknowledge a kindred tie of an earthly nature, he 
surely would have acknowledged his poor mother as 
she stood weeping near the cross upon which he was 
dying. Even then, however, true to his great com¬ 
munistic ideal, he refused to acknowledge any such 
tie. In that last awful hour he addressed her, not by 
the endearing term “ mother,” which she doubtless 
longed to hear one time from his lips, but by the 
harsh term “ woman,” and called her the mother of 
another man to whom, by the ties of blood, she was 
in no way related. Referring her to this other man, 


198 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


he simply said: “Woman, behold thy son.” If, then, 
the fact that he never directly acknowledged an 
earthly father be taken as proof that he never had 
any such father, is not the fact that he never directly 
acknowledged an earthly mother bound to be taken 
as conclusive proof that he never had any such 
mother? I hold that his non-acknowledgment con* 
stitutesa far stronger proof of non-relationship, in the 
case of the mother, than it does in the case of the 
father. To his father, who had never been his 
mother’s husband, and who had never acknowledged 
him, or helped support him, he was bound by no ties 
of love or gratitude. There was no reason why he 
should acknowledge such a father. Indeed, there 
were the very best of reasons why he should remain 
entirely silent, just as he did, in regard to such a 
father. Under such circumstances, then, his mere 
failure to speak of his earthly father is no proof at all 
that he never had any such father. In regard to his 
mother, however, or his supposed mother, Mary, the 
case is quite different. To her he was bound by 
the strong ties of love and gratitude. She stood 
faithfully by him in all his sorrows. If, then, she 
was his mother, why did he not acknowledge her as 
such? Does not his positive refusal, then, under 
such circumstances, to acknowledge such a mother, 
constitute far stronger proof that he never had any 
such mother than has ever been adduced to prove 
that he never had a father? 

Be all this as it may, however, he never spoke of 
himself as anything else than a human being. On all 
occasions he called himself, not the “Son of God,” 



THE MESSIAH OK SAVIOR, 


199 


but the “Son of Man/’ and pointedly disclaimed the 
possession of power to do anything which could not 
be done by other men. In John xiv, 12, he says: 
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on 
me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater 
works than these shall he do.' 1 Since, then, he never 
claimed to be, in a literal sense, the son of God, and 
since his works were not superior—were not equal, in 
fact—to the works of men, what proof have we that 
he was anything more than a man ? Will my oppo¬ 
nents please give us those proofs? 

When speaking of God, with reference to himself, 
he constantly used the terms “ my Father.” When 
speaking of God in precisely the same sense, but with 
reference to his disciples and others, he just as con¬ 
stantly used the term “your Father.” In John xx, 
17, he says: “Touch me not: for I am not yet as- . 
cended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say 
unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, 
and unto my God and your God.” From this we 
learn that the brethren of Jesus were just as much the 
sons of God, and in precisely the same sense, as was 
Jesus himself. If, therefore, they were mere men, as 
all admitthat they were, could he have been anything 
more than a mere man ? Could he have been the 
son of God in any other sense than that of adoption, 
as in the case of all God’s other sons? This was cer¬ 
tainly the view of the matter held by a large portion, 
if not a majority, of the early Christians. The fact 
that Jesus is spoken of as the “ only begotten ” son 
of God proves nothing in regard to his paternity, 
since, as every Bible critic knows, the phrase “ only 


2«X> 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


begotten’' is generally, if not always, used in the 
Bible simply to express the most dearly beloved. A 
man with a dozen sons, might, and usually did, have 
one “ only begotten ” or most dearly beloved son. 
Although Abraham certainly had another son, yet 
Isaac is constantly spoken of as his “ only begotten 
son ”—as one that he loved as if he had never begot¬ 
ten any other. Jesus, then, was merely the most 
dearly beloved of God’s many so-called sons. His 
literal relationship to God was exactly the same as 
was that of all the others. 

It was not until the year 325. at the first council of 
Nice, that the honor of a divine paternity was defi¬ 
nitely conferred upon Jesus. Even then it was con¬ 
ferred upon him simply as a compromise with pagan¬ 
ism, and not because those who conferred it really be¬ 
lieved that he actually was the son of God. The 
vote by which it was conferred was far from being 
unanimous. Indeed, from all I can learn on the sub¬ 
ject, it was not even a majority vote of the whole 
council. A large number of delegates, with the cele¬ 
brated Arius at their head, bravely voted against the 
idolatrous proposition to confer divine honors upon a 
human being, as they all believed Jesus to have been. 
Many other delegates refused to vote at all. They 
would not vote for the proposition, and they dared 
not vote against it. They were intimidated by the 
Emperor Constantine, who was chairman of that coun¬ 
cil, and who went into it with a determination to force 
the council to engraft upon Christianity the favorite 
pagan doctrine that the gods sometimes condescended 
to beget offspring upon human mothers. Until then. 




THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


201 


Christianity had been, like Judiasm, a strictly mono¬ 
theistic religion. To such a religion the polytheistic 
pagans could not be readily converted. They wanted 
a plurality of gods, and they specially clung to the 
doctrine of demi-gods or mediators. In order to 
gather these pagans into the Christian fold, therefore, 
it was found necessary to engraft this favorite doc¬ 
trine of theirs upon Christianity by conferring the 
honors of demi-godship upon Jesus. Constantine, 
who was himself only partially converted to Chris¬ 
tianity, saw this necessity, and therefore determined 
to have the old pagan doctrine in question, to which, 
moreover, himself still fondly clung, engrafted upon 
his new religion. 

When Constantine took his seat as chairman of the 
council in question his hands were reeking with the 
blood of many innocent persons, including several 
members of his own family, whom he had brutally 
murdered; and if I remember the history correctly, 
one of his first acts, after taking his seat, was to add 
another horrible murder, that of his own son Crispus, 
who was an excellent young man, much loved by the 
people. After this last atrocious murder Constantine 
became the controlling spirit of the council. Indeed, 
it may be truthfully said that he became the council 
itself. Those delegates who opposed his views did so 
at the almost certain cost of their lives. Under such 
circumstances, many who differed with him dared not 
oppose him. As a matter of course, those delegates 
who were his mere instruments voted as he wished, 
an I by them it was that the honor of divine paternity 
was conferred upon Jesus, who thenceforth took the 


202 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


same place in the Christian religion that Prometheus 
and others occupied in the religion of the pagans. 
With the simple change of a few names, the songs 
which had hitherto been sung in honor of Prometheus, 
or some other pagan deity, were now sung in honor of 
Jesus. “Alas! and did our savior bleed?'’ etc., is an 
old pagan song formerly sung in honor of Prometheus. 
Christianity as now taught, therefore, is simply the 
old pagan mythology of Greece and Rome, under a 
new name. Its principles are unchanged. It consists 
in the worship of a man deified by the strictly partisan 
votes of less than two hundred uninspired men. 

If, however, as paganized Christians now generally 
teach, Jesus never had a human father; if he was, in 
fact, the literally begotten son of God, then the ques¬ 
tion naturally arises, how did God manage to beget 
him? The pagans, from whom the idea of hybrid or 
half-breed gods is borrowed, found no difficulty in 
regard to the modus operandi by which the gods begot 
such offspring. Those pagans had the gods assume 
bodily forms, similar to the bodies of men, and then 
had them, by means of these assumed bodies, hold 
genuine sexual intercourse with the women whom 
they had chosen to be the mothers of their mongrel 
offspring. Such intercourse was generally, if not 
always, held in the temple of the god who desired 
such offspring. Having selected a beautiful woman, 
always a virgin, of course, the God, through a priest, 
would make known to her his wishes, and request her 
to come to the temple and remain over night, promis¬ 
ing, in case of her compliance, to embrace her in a 
bodily form, and to confer upon her the wonderful 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


203 


blessing of making her the mother of a gods offer¬ 
ings. Sometimes a virgin had to make many such 
visits to the temple before the desired object was ac¬ 
complished, and she was made the prospective mother 
of a half-breed god. The only serious drawback to 
this method was the notorious fact that the young 
half-breed generally bore a striking resemblance to 
some lusty priest of the temple in which its mother 
had received the embraces of the god, its father. 

As I showed in a former lecture, the God of the 
Bible, like these pagan deities, used to have, at times, 
a body resembling the body of a man. With such a 
body, he might, perhaps, very easily have begotten a 
child. Before he begot any child, however, he was 
entirely deprived of his body by his followers, who, 
as I also showed, reduced him to the unenviable and 
utterly helpless condition of empty space. They left 
him neither body nor parts, neither boundaries nor or¬ 
ganization ; and they now deny that anything material 
ever entered into his composition. 

Notwithstanding all this, however, they represent 
him as a male, and unblushingly declare that he was 

the actual father of a certain Miss Mary-’s baby. 

They teach not only that these things are absolutely 
true, but also that a belief in them is absolutely nec- 
essary to salvation—that all of us will be eternally 
damned who find ourselves utterly unable to believe 
such ridiculous nonsense. And yet, if a Miss Smith, 
a M iss Brown, or some other Miss of their own neigh¬ 
borhood, were to become a mother in exactly the 

same way that Miss Mary-did, how many of 

these good and faithful Christians would worship the 




204 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


young Smith, the young Brown, or the young illegit¬ 
imate child of any other name, as the son of God V 
Would not these good people be very likely to fancy 
that they perceived a resemblance between the child 
and some gentleman of the neighborhood? 

In order to become an actual father, God, of neces¬ 
sity, had to actually beget a child, and in order to 
thus beget a child, he had, of equal necessity, to pos¬ 
sess organs of sex, and to use these organs upon the 
corresponding organs of the child’s mother. These 
are facts which no intelligent person will attempt to 
dispute. And yet, on pain of eternal damnation, we 
are required to implicity believe that a certain child 
was actually begotten by something without body, 
parts, passion, boundaries, or material composition— 
by something exactly equivalent to empty space—by 
something so vast in extent that light, traveling ten 
billion times ten billion ages, would be no nearer the 
end of it than we are now—by something which, for 
want of room to move in, is, of necessity, utterly in¬ 
capable of the slightest motion in any direction. 

And now, in order to enable us poor Infidels to be¬ 
lieve this monstrous baby story, and to thus escape 
eternal damnation, will not some one of those good 
men who feel themselves specially called of God to 
preach the gospel and to save souls be so kind as to 
explain to us exactly how God did manage to beget 
the baby in question? Although we do not know 
just what it is to be damned, yet we frankly confess 
that, from all we have ever heard of it, we would a 
little rather not undergo the operation, and since 
faith in this baby story is our only means of salya- 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


205 


v^tion, we would like to believe the story if we only 
could. 

The Christians should have permitted their adopted 
God to retain his body until he had begotten this baby. 
As the case now stands it devolves upon them to 
prove not only that God could, but that he actually 
did, perform the wonderful feat of literally begetting 
this baby, without even the slightest trace of anything 
to beget it with. This must be one of the mysteries 
of godliness. 

Does God’s sexual power exist equally everywhere 
throughout his entire infinite extent? If it does, if 
it exists all around our own women just as it existed 
around the mother of Jesus, what is to hinder it from 
having the same effect upon them that it had upon 
her? Are they not liable at any time to become the 
mothers of little half-breed gods ? And what assurance 
have we that many of our own supposed sons are not 
young Jesuses begotten in this very way ? How are 
w r e to know our own offspring? 

If, on the other hand, God’s sexual power does 
not exist everywhere, at what particular point in 
space does it exist, and in what respect does that 
point differ from any other point ? In other and 
plainer words, which the importance of the subject 
justifies me in using, where was' the seed or life-germ 
from which Jesus sprang produced ? By what agencies 
was it produced ? Whence did the material come of 
which it was composed ? And by what means w r as it 
finally conveyed to the proper spot in the body of the 
mother? These are fair and proper questions, but 
who can answer them ? 


206 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


Adam Clarke guesses that the life-germ in question 
must have been created all out of nothing, inside of 
the mother’s body. Mr. Clarke, however, overlooks 
the important fact that such a creating of a child 
would be no begetting of it at all. In that case God 
would be the child’s creator, not its father. The child 
too, being a created being, would, of absolute necessity, 
be also a finite being. As well might you call God 
the father of the ape, the ass, the devil, or anything 
else that he created, as to call him the father of such a 
created person. How, then, did he beget that child ? 

Of necessity there must have been a particular mo¬ 
ment previous to which there was no life-germ within 
the body of that child’s mother, and immediately after 
which there was such a germ within her body. By 
what process was this change made in her condition? 
Did she know just when this change took place? If 
so, by what means was she enabled to know it? 

Of necessity, the life-germ in question must have 
been originally produced either within that woman’s 
bodv or without it If within her bodv, then, of neces- 
sity, it could never have been produced by a male; 
and, of equal necessity, the child could never have 
been begotten, or had a father at all. This absurd 
hypothesis, then, would as thoroughly un-God Jesus 
as would the proving of him to have been the son of a 
human father. 

If, on the other hand, that life-germ originated out¬ 
side of that woman’s body, then, of necessity, it had 
to be conveyed from the place where it originated to 
the proper spot within her body. By what means, 
then, I again ask, was it conveyed to that spot, and 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


207 


from what point in space was it conveyed? Should 
not theologians be able to answer this question ? 

It is a well-established fact that the production of 
such life-germs is a function of the male sex alone. In 
order to produce such life-germs, however, the male, 
whether he be a man, a god, or a lower animal, must, 
of necessity, possess organs of sex. Indeed, without 
a special organization to constitute sex, no such thing 
as sex can exist. It is also a well-known fact that in 
all cases the male organs of sex must, of necessity, be 
so adapted to, and brought in contact "with, the corre¬ 
sponding organs of the female that the life-germ, 
uninjured, can be transferred from the former to the 
latter. The act, on the part of the male, of thus 
bringing his organs of sex into proper contact with the 
corresponding organs of the female, and of transferring 
to the proper spot in her body the life germ of a new 
individual, is called a begetting of offspring, and is 
the only act which in a literal sense can be, or ever is, 
so called. By no other possible act can the male, 
among viviparous animals like men, ever literally be¬ 
get offspring, or become a father. If, then, God ever 
did literally beget a child and become a father—and 
this literal sense is the only one that would make the 
child anything more than a human being—he must, 
of necessity, have literally performed the act which I 
have described. 

In order to perform this act, however, his organs of 
sex had, of necessity, to be adapted, like those of a 
man, to the corresponding organs of the woman upon 
whom the act was performed. Since, therefore, hers 
were material organs, his must, of necessity, have been 


208 


DEITY ANALYZED 


material also. Indeed, the life-germ, from which 
Jesus sprang, being the nucleus or embryo of a mate¬ 
rial body, and being itself composed of matter, could 
not possibly have had any other than a material 
source ; and could not possibly have been conveyed 
by any other than material or mechanical means from 
the place where it originated to the proper spot in the 
woman’s body. In what respect, then, could the body 
of Jesus’s father have differed from that of a man? 
If it had differed in any respect whatever, would there 
not, of necessity, have been a corresponding difference 
between the life-germ which, as an effect, proceeded 
from it, and the life-germ which, as an effect, proceeds 
from the body of a man ? Could unlike causes pro¬ 
duce other than unlike effects? And if the body of 
Jesus was developed from a life-germ entirely differ¬ 
ent from the life-germ of a man, would not his body 
have been, of necessity, entirely different from the 
body of a man ? In either case, what is the body but 
the fully developed life-germ ? 

Of necessity, Jesus must have been either a god or 
a man, or a cross between the two. Of equal neces¬ 
sity, therefore, his body must have been either the 
body of a god or the body of a man, or a cross be¬ 
tween the two bodies. Since, however, according to 
all orthodox teachings, no true god has any body, I 
suppose that no orthodox Christian will claim that 
the body of Jesus was the body of a god, or a cross 
between the body of a god and the body of a man. 
In other words, I suppose it to be universally con¬ 
ceded that the body of Jesus was a purely human 


THE MESSIAH Oli SAVIOR 


209 


body. Indeed, if his body was not human, what was 
there human about him ? 

But what was this human body of Jesus? What 
could it have been but a fully-developed human life- 
germ ? And could such a human life-germ have pro¬ 
ceeded from any other than a human source? Does 
a life germ, in its process of development, ever entirely 
lose its original nature? Does the life-germ of a po¬ 
tato ever develop into the body of a pure apple, or 
the lift 1 germ of an apple into the body of a pure po¬ 
tato? Does the life-germ of an ass ever develop into 
the body of a pure sheep, or the life-germ of a sheep 
into the body of a pure ass? So of gods and men. 
If they be entirely different orders of beings, as all 
theologians admit that they are, is it reasonable to 
suppose that a pure body of the one was ever devel¬ 
oped from a life-germ of the other? A man may 
make a god, and a god may make a man; but neither 
of them can possibly beget the other; neither of them 
can possibly beget anything but a being of his own 
order . God could beget an ape, or an ass, and be its 
father, just as easily as he could beget a man, and be 
bis father. 

Be all this as it may, however, the body of Jesus, 
as I have already shown, was a purely human body. 
This fact being established, it follows, as a matter of 
necessity, that all the functions of his body were 
purely human functions. His eyes, his ears, his stom¬ 
ach, etc., must, of necessity, have performed precisely 
the same functions as are performed respectively by 
the same organs in any other human body. So of his 
purely human brain. It could not possibly have 


210 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


given forth as its function any other than purely hu¬ 
man thoughts, feelings, and desires. So also of his 
purely human organs of sex. With these he could 
doubtless have begotten sons and daughters, but these 
would all have been men and women, not gods and god¬ 
desses. Dare } r ou deny any of these plain truths? If 
not, what was Jesus? What could he have been but 
a purely human being? 

If, however, you dare dispute these truths, and espe¬ 
cially those in regard to the sexual powers of Jesus, 
then, of necessity, you must choose one horn or the 
other of the following dilemma : you must charge Jesus 
either with having had less power than an ordinary man, 
with having been perfectly impotent sexually, with 
having been utterly incapable of begetting offspring at 
all, or else you must claim that he was capable of be¬ 
getting an indefinite number of young gods and god¬ 
desses, who, in their turn, would in like manner have 
also been capable of still further increasing the num¬ 
ber of beings of their own order. If you choose the 
first horn of this dilemma, and bring the charge of 
total impotence against Jesus, then it devolves upon 
you to prove the truth of this blasphemous charge. If 
you choose the other horn, then it devolves upon you 
to say whether he and all the children, grandchildren, 
etc., that might have proceeded from him would have 
been so many distinct beings, or whether they 'would 
all ha^e been only one single god, just as you now 
teach that Jesus and his father, and another god—a 
friend of theirs—all constitute only one god. The 
fact, if it be a fact, that Jesus did not beget any off¬ 
spring, does not make any difference. If he was capa- 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR, 


211 


ble of begetting them, then they were capable of 
existing Their existence, therefore, was at one time 
a possible, if not a probable, contingency; and what¬ 
ever is thus clearly possible, or probable, in fact, is 
always fairly supposable in argument What, then, 
would the children of Jesus have been, had he seen 
fit to beget any ? 

Grossly absurd as is the doctrine that Jesu3 was lit¬ 
erally the begotten son of God, it is, if possible, ren¬ 
dered a thousand times more absurd by making Jesus 
himself—as most theologians do—to have been his 
own father—the very self-same God that begot him. 
This doctrine is undeniably the very essence of ortho¬ 
dox Christianity, and yet all persons, except the priests 
who are paid for preaching it, and the fools who pay 
them, can see that it is also the very essence of all ab¬ 
surdities. Just as reasonably might you say of a man 
or an ass that he is himself the very same man, or the 
very same ass, that begot him. If a god could, in a 
literal sense, beget himself a son, without thereby 
increasing the number of gods, then, on the same 
principle, a man or an ass could in the same sense 
beget himself a son without thereby increasing the 
number of men or of asses. If two or more gods 
could be only one God, as theologians teach that they 
are, then two or more men could certainly be only 
one man, and two or more asses only one ass. All of 
these tilings are evidently possible, if any of them are. 

Every intelligent person, however, know T s that in 
begetting himself a son, a god, a man, or an ass, of 
necessity, starts into existence an entirely new and 
distinct individual of his own order of beings. If, 


212 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


then, God ever begot himself a son at all, he necessa¬ 
rily increased the number of distinct and independent 
gods. If he did this, then we have a plurality of 
gods, just as had the old pagans. Like those pagans, 
too, we have the means, by procreation, to so increase 
the number of gods that, if he so desires it, every man 
mav have a god of his own. Dare any one say that 
God has grown impotent? Dare any one say that he 
could not beget a billion young gods, if he wished to 
do so? 

Nearly all theologians of the present day, however, 
are opposed to this unlimited increase in the number 
of gods. Seeing, therefore, that if they permit God 
to beget one distinct young god, they open the way 
for him to beget as many more as he pleases, they 
almost universally teach that, when begetting his so- 
called son, Jesus, he did not impart to the mother the 
life-germ of a new and distinct individual, butconveved 
himself, entire, into her womb, and there had himself 
clothed with human flesh. A strange begetting truly! 

In order to perform this wonderful feat he had, of 
necessity, to draw himself in, on every side, from the 
illimitable universe, and compress himself into a life- 
germ—into a particle of matter so small as to be visible 
only through a powerful microscope. If he conveyed 
himself to the womb of that woman at all, he must, 
of necessity, have conveyed himself in his entirety. 
Had he remained abroad in the universe the same as 
before, or had he conveyed only an infinitely small 
portion of himself to the womb of that woman, it ev¬ 
idently would not have been himself at all that was 
born of her under the name of Jesus. Picture your- 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


213 


self, then, with a microscope, searching for your God, 
in the form of a spermatozoon, or life-germ, just as 
you would search for animalcule in a drop of water, 
or for trichinae in an extremely small bit of old sau¬ 
sage. If you can conceive of your God in this condi¬ 
tion, then you can begin to form a just conception of 
the unparalleled absurdities of the Christian religion. 

And now, let us ask, who ruled the universe while 
God was thus compressed into a microscopic particle; 
while he was undergoing the slow process of gestation; 
while he was a little, helpless, toothless, crying babe, 
wrapped in swaddling clcthes; while he was suffering 
from teething, dysentery, measles, whooping-cough, 
etc.? Besides this, since all things are possible with 
God, could he not just as easily have reduced himself 
to two life-germs, and have been born twins; or to ten 
thousand life-germs, and have been born of ten thou¬ 
sand different virgins ? At an}^ rate, could he not, 
just as easily and just as properly, have been born of 
a negro virgin, and have been born a woolly-headed, 
thick-lipped, flat-nosed, long-heeled darkey, with the 
offensive odor peculiar to the negro race? If, in his 
infinite wisdom, he had seen fit to be thus born a dar¬ 
key, how many of you would worship him as a god 
in that form ? 

Be all these things as they may, however, we cer¬ 
tainly are required, on pain of eternal damnation— 
whatever that may be—to implicitly believe that the 
mysterious, the illimitable power that sustains the uni¬ 
verse, actually did thus reduce itself to an animalcule 
* * 

invisible to the naked eye; that, while in this condi¬ 
tion, by a process called begetting itself a son. it act- 


214 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


ually did convey its entire self into the womb of a 
woman; that it actually did there undergo the proc¬ 
ess of gestation; that it actually was born a helpless 
baby; that, like any other baby, it actually did have 
to live on milk, and to take soot tea, soothing syrup, 
and paregoric; that, like any other baby, it actually 
did squirm and squall when suffering from colic; and 
a thousand other things equally absurd. On the same 
penalty we are required, moreover, to believe that it 

did and suffered all these tilings for the express pur* 

* 

pose of finally having itself put to death to appease 
its own wrath, w r hich, as I have already explained, had 
been terribly aroused thousands of years before by 
our first parents, when the 3 r ate some fruit, which it 
had forbidden them to eat, but which it nevertheless 
intended that they should eat. 

We are still further required to believe that, while 
in the limited form of a man, this utterly illimitable 
power often addressed itself as its own father; that it 
daily offered up prayers to itself; that it claimed to 
possess no powers, except such as it had received from 
itself; that it finally went up to heaven—whatever 
and -wherever that may be; that, although it never 
had any bodily parts of any kind, it nevertheless took 
a seat at its own right hand, where it still sits inter¬ 
ceding with itself for sinners; that this was all a 
divine scheme or stratagem devised and executed for 
the express purpose of cheating the devil out of his 
just dues, by saving men who, according to every 
principle of justice and fitness, ought to go to hell— 

whatever and wherever that mav be; that, without 

•/ * 

this wonderful scheme, the power in question would 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


215 


have found it necessary to eternally damn the whole 
human race; that, even with the scheme, it finds itself 
obliged to damn all those who happen to be too intel¬ 
ligent to believe all these and a thousand more similar 
absurdities; and that, finally, since none but fools are 
able to believe these things, none but fools can ever 
hope to enter the pearly gates of the New Jerusalem. 

And now, I wish to examine the evidence upon 
which rests this fundamental doctrine of Christianity, 
this wonderful story of God’s literal incarnation in 
the womb of a woman whom he had himself created. 
The only evidence we have upon the subject is found 
in certain books of the New Testament called gospels; 
and these books plainly contradict one another in 
almost every particular pertaining to this matter. 
These contradictions clearly prove that the writings 
of some of these books are certainly false, and since 
we do not know which ones of them are false, we can¬ 
not know which ones are true. Indeed, since we do 
not know when any of these books were written, by 
whom they were written, in what language they were 
written, or for what purpose they were written, we 
cannot be sure that there is a word of truth in any 
of them. All this I will fully prove in future lectures. 
For the present, accepting these writings as we find 
them, what do they prove in regard to the matter un¬ 
der consideration ? Of the four gospels now extant, 
two, Mark and John, are almost entirely silent upon 
the subject. The other two, Matthew and Luke, con¬ 
tradict each other all the way through. 

The author of Matthew—whoever that author may 
have been—bases the whole doctrine of the incarna- 


216 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


tion of God, or the immaculate conception of Jesus, 
upon a dream which he says was dreamed by an ob¬ 
scure man named Joseph. This man was the affianced 
husband of the woman in whose womb this so-called 
incarnation of God is said to have taken place. Ad¬ 
mitting, however, that the author reported the dream 
just as he heard it, and that through a thousand devi 
ous and corrupt channels his report has reached us 
unchanged, what is that report worth? Since the 
dreamer alone could have known and told his dream, 
his unsupported word was the only authority which 
the author could possibly have had on the subject. 
And of what value was such authority? Do we know 
anything of the dreamer’s character for veracity? 
Was not the dreamer an interested party? Was not 
his dream story, if believed by the people, calculated 
to get himself and his affianced bride out of a serious 
difficulty ? 

According to the laws of the country, it became his 
duty, as the affianced husband of this woman, to put 
her to death, or to inflict some other heavy penalty 
upon her for the offense of which her pregnancy was 
prima facie evidence that she had been guilty. Being 
a kind-hearted man, however, and deeply in love with 
this young woman, who was very beautiful, and who 
till then had borne a spotless reputation, he could not 
find it in his heart to perform the cruel duty of inflict¬ 
ing severe punishment upon her. He preferred to 
forgive her, and to still hold her to the marriage en¬ 
gagement that existed between them. Having doubt¬ 
less heard her story, he felt more inclined to pity her 
than to blame her. But how could he. in the face of 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


217 


an indignant public, take a disgraced woman to his 
arms, and make her the step mother of his children ? 
If he could only prevent her disgrace all would still 
be well. 

Since, therefore, at that time dreams were in high 
repute among the Jews, as was also the doctrine that 
gods sometimes beget children upon human mothers, 
what was more natural, under the circumstances, than 
that Joseph should invent and report just such a 
dream as the one in question. Could he make this 
stratagem succeed he would shield Mary from disgrace, 
and make his proposed marriage with her honorable 
in the eyes of the people. And why should not this 
stratagem succeed ? Had it not succeeded in the cases 
of many other reputed virgins who had been found in 
the same condition ? At any rate, the dream could 
do no harm. Joseph therefore dreamed it, just as 
nearly any one of us would have done had we been in 
his place. This I regard as the most rational explana¬ 
tion of the dream story. 

Suppose, however, that Joseph really did have such 
a dream, what w T as his dream worth ? If one of us 
should dream a similar dream concerning some unfor¬ 
tunate young woman of our own neighborhood, what 
would our own dream be worth? And can Joseph’s 
dream be any better evidence to us than our own 
would be? 

What is a dream? Simply an embodiment of the 
thoughts and fancies conceived by the mind while a 
portion of its faculties are quiescent in sleep. In other 
words, dreaming is the action of only a part of the 
mind. When sleep is perfect, when no part of the 


218 DEITY ANALYZED. 

mind is in action, there is no thought at all, and, con* 
frequently, no dreaming. So when we are fully awake, 
when our thoughts proceed from the whole mind, and 
not from a part of it only, then the process of thinking 
is no longer called dreaming. We are then dealing 
with the real, and not, as in dreaming, with the imagin¬ 
ary. That this is the correct view of dreaming few 
intelligent persons ill now attempt to dispute. And 
can a man know more, or reason better, with a part 
only of his mind than he can with it all? If not, 
were Joseph’s dreaming thoughts worth any more than 
were his waking thoughts? Which were more in 
accordance with reason, science, and common sense— 
his waking thoughts which pointed to a man as the 
fatherof Mary’s unborn babe, or his dreaming thoughts 
which pointed to a never-before-heard-of ghost as its 
father? Which are more likely to beget babies, men. 
or ghosts? By which, then, a man or a ghost, was 
Jesus more likely to have been begotten? And why 
* was it that “ the angel of the Lord ” could never make 
his appearance to Joseph when this gentleman was 
awake? Why did that angel, on all occasions, come 
sneaking up to Joseph when he was asleep, and when, 
consequently, he could neither see clearly nor reason 
correctly ? . ,... , 

Your priests and Sunday-school teachers have 
doubtless inculcated into your minds the idea that 
Joseph actually saw “an angel of the Lord,’’and that 
he actually heard that angel speak certain words con¬ 
cerning Mary and her unborn babe. The Bible, how¬ 
ever, as you can easily learn by reading it for your¬ 
selves. gives no such account of the affair. It simply 


THE MESSIAH QR SAVIOR. 


219 


represents Joseph as dreaming that he saw art angel, 
and that he heard the angel speak those words. Re¬ 
alities, you well know, are not dreams. Had the 
apparent visit of the angel to Joseph, therefore, been 
a reality, there would have been no more dream about 
it than there is about my presence before you this 
evening. The fact, then, that Joseph’s angel was a 
dream angel is proof positive that the whole thing was 
a creation of Joseph’s own partially dormant brain. 
Of what value, then, was that dream? If, at the 
present time, a man should testify that in his dreams 
he seemed to see certain incredible things, would any¬ 
body believe that he actually had seen them t Which 
testimony is worth the most, that of the man who tes¬ 
tifies that he was fully awake when he saw and heard 
certain things, or that of the man who testifies that he 
was asleep when he saw them and heard them ? 

Suppose that you had lived at the time of which we 
are speaking. Suppose, too, that the young woman in 
question had been the daughter of your next neighbor, 
Mr. Smith, and that she had caused a great scandal in 
the neighborhood by becoming a prospective mother 
without ever having been a wife. Suppose, further, 
that Mr. Joseph Brown, another neighbor of yours, 
an old widower, a man strictly honest, but rather 
stupid, and grossly superstitious, a believer in dreams, 
in ghosts, etc., and in the sexual cohabitation of gods 
and ghosts with human females—suppose, I repeat, 
that, just at the right time to rescue her almost hope¬ 
lessly-lost reputation, this man, who was blindly in- 
love with Miss Smith, had dreamed that her unborn- 
babe had been begotten by a certain ghost of whom 


220 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


you had never before heard, would you, on the strength 
of that dream, have bowed down to that little helpless 
bibe, and worshiped it as a God? You know very 
well that you would not And can this ghost-baby 
dream have become worth any more by reaching us, 
as it does, through a thousand doubtful channels than 
it would have been if received directly from the 
dreamer himself? 

Luke tells a very different story about this affair. 
He says that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary her¬ 
self and made known to her what was about to hap¬ 
pen to her. This story relieves Joseph of the necessity 
of dreaming, and is, in my opinion, a better story than 
is that of Matthew, which we have just examined. 
Upon whose authority, however, does Luke base his 
story? Since no one except Mary saw the angel on 
the occasion in question, or heard him speak, her 
word was evidently the only testimony that could 
have been had upon the subject But, under the cir¬ 
cumstances, how much was her word worth? What 
do we know of her character for veracity? Was she 
not a deeply interested party? Was not her story, 
too, quite a common one among unmarried women who 
found themselves in a condition similar to hers? If 
her name had been Mary Smith, and she had been 
your next neighbor’s daughter, how much would her 
word have been worth? Under similar circumstances, 
how much credit would you now give to the similar 
word of an equally truthful young woman of your 
own neighborhood? You knew that you would re¬ 
gard such a story as too ridiculous to even talk about 
And yet, in either of these supposed cases, the testi- 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


221 


mony coming directly from the pretended virgin her¬ 
self would be far better than it can be as it now 
reaches us through a thousand doubtful hearsays. 
Such young women, and such babies, are never wor¬ 
shiped by those who are best acquainted with them. 
In order to believe such stories men must be totally 
ignorant of the facts, and must, moreover, be thor¬ 
oughly blinded by priestcraft 

On these two absurd and contradictory stories, writ¬ 
ten by no one knows whom, rests the doctrine of the 
divine paternity of Jesus, and on this doctrine rests the 
entire Christian religion. And must we, indeed, be 
eternally tormented in flames of fire and brimstone, if 
we find ourselves utterly unable, on such testimony, 
to believe this supremely ridiculous story? If we 
must, then, wdio, except the most arrant fools, who 
can believe anything that their priests tell them to be¬ 
lieve, can hope to escape damnation? How came God 
to have sex? According to all orthodox teachings, 
its possession by him, and its special relation or adapta¬ 
tion to a particular object—the begetting of Jesus— 
must, of necessity, have been the result either of pure 
accident, or of deliberate design. If it w ? as the result 
of pure accident, then were not both God and Jesus, 
of necessity, purely accidental beings? If it was the 
result of deliberate design, then must there not have 
been, of equal necessity, a deliberate designer—an 
olderGod who, with a particular object—thebegetting 
of Jesus—in view, bestowed sex upon your God as the 
necessary means of accomplishing that object? Are 
you not bound to choose one horn or the other of this 
dilemma? Are not the means always designed and 


222 


DEITY ANALYZED 


provided with direct reference to the object intended 
to be accomplished by them ? If, then, as the Bible 
and all its defenders teach, the coming of Jesus in the 
human form upon earth was an object which had 
long been designed, then are you not absolutely 
forced to admit that the designer of that object— 
whoever he may have been—must also, of necessity, 
have designed and provided, with direct reference to 
that object, the sei of your God, which was the only 
means by which that object could possibly be ac¬ 
complished? You are certainly bound either to ad¬ 
mit this fact, or else to claim that God’s sex originally 
existed without any use or design at all, and that, 
as a purely accidental after-thought, he finally con¬ 
cluded to use this purely accidental and utterly ob¬ 
jectless possession of his in the begetting of Jesus. 
Which one of these two utterly ruinous conclusions 
will you accept? 

And now, before closing my already long lecture, 
I wish to consider the nature and the effect of the 
vicarious atonement said to have been made for us bv 
Jesus. As you doubtless all know, this so-called 
atonement was made by the sufferings which he en¬ 
dured in our stead. 

In the first place, then, I will say that, since it en¬ 
tirely releases the guilty from the punishment due to 
their crimes, this method of atonement is both unjust 
and unwise. Leaving, as it does, the wicked without a 
check to their wickedness, it necessarily leaves the 
good without protection from that wickedness. Far 
worse than this, however, is the other phase of this 
form of atonement, the punishing of the innocent 


THE MESSIAH OK 5AVIOK. 


228 


in the place of the guilty. This is simply placing a 
penalty upon virtue, a premium upon vice. What 
would you think of an absolute monarch who, having 
found a band of robbers guilty of various capital 
crimes, should condemn his own innocent son to suffer 
death in their stead, and at their hands; and who 
should then, in consideration of this foul murder,, 
take the murderers into special favor and make them 
his heirs? Could anything but the foulest of all 
fiends perform such an act? And does not the doc¬ 
trine in question make God just such a fiend? Why 
could not God just as easily have pardoned men and 
saved them from hell, without this murder, as he 
could with it? Can you explain how the committing 
of this one more murder could render men so much 
fitter subjects for pardon and for heaven than they 
were before ? And what if men had refused or neg¬ 
lected to commit this murder? Would such refusal, 
or such neglect, have resulted in their universal dam¬ 
nation ? Since God foreordained, and made utterly 
unavoidable, the death of Jesus upon the cross, must 
he not, also, of absolute necessity, have foreordained 
and made equally unavoidable the instrumentalities 
by which that death was to be brought about? Did 
not God himself, then, virtually perform this act of 
murder? Were men anything more than the mere 
instruments with which he performed the acts? And 
could a particle of either merit or demerit attach to 
these instruments on account of the use to which they 
were put ? 

Of necessity, that part of Jesus which suffered 
death must have been his human part. In demanding 



224 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


and accepting the sacrifice of Jesus, therefore, your 
God undeniably demanded and accepted a human sac¬ 
rifice. How much better, then, is he than are other 
gods who demand and accept human sacrifices? If, 
before you were old enough to reason upon the sub¬ 
ject, you had not been totally blinded by priestcraft, 
you could not fail to perceive that this is simply one 
of the most horrible doctrines of paganism. 

Besides its horrible injustice and inhumanity, this 
vicarious atonement ha3 proved to be a total failure. 
If, in our stead, Jesus suffered punishment, then, of 
necessity, he must have suffered that very punish¬ 
ment to which we had been condemned, and which we 
would have had to suffer if he had not thus suffered 
it in our stead. To have suffered any other form of 
punishment would not have been to suffer in our stead 
at all, we not having been condemned to that punish¬ 
ment. If I be condemned to die, you cannot take my 
punishment upon yourself, and suffer in my stead, in 
any other way than by suffering death; and by suf¬ 
fering it, too, in the very manner in which I was con¬ 
demned to suffer it 

To what form of punishment, then, had we been 
condemned ? To physical death only, and to the ne¬ 
cessity of laboring for our bread while we do live. 
When at the time of the so called fall God passed sen¬ 
tence upon the human race, he did not even hint at such 
a punishment as eternal damnation. Indeed, this lat¬ 
ter form of punishment does not seem to have been 
invented until several thousand years afterward. We 
being condemned to no punishment except that of 
physical death and of hard labor, there was evidently 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


225 


nothing else from which we could have been re¬ 
deemed, nothing else that Jesus could have suffered 
in our stead. 

What punishment, then, did Jesus suffer? Phys¬ 
ical death only? And did he suffer it in our stead ? 
If he did, must not this have been the very punish¬ 
ment to which we had been condemned ? What other 
punishment could it have been that he suffered in our 
stead ? If the punishment to which we were con¬ 
demned had been, as most of you teach that it was, 
that of eternal damnation, then, in order to redeem 
us from that punishment, by himself suffering it in our 
stead, Jesus must of course have been eternally 
damned. Since, therefore, he did not suffer this pun¬ 
ishment at all, or any other punishment equivalent 
thereto, it clearly follows that his vicarious atonement 
never redeemed us from any such punishment, and 
that we are still under the doom of eternal damnation 
if we ever were. If, however, he had been eternally 
damned in our stead, would not the act of thus damn¬ 
ing him have been just as right and just as proper as 
was the act of inflicting upon him any other punish¬ 
ment in our stead ? Would not the principle have 
been the same? And would not the magnanimity dis¬ 
played by him and the benefit conferred upon us 
have been infinitely greater than they were, if, as you 
teach, he merely suffered for us a few moments of 
physical pain? 

Be all this as it may, however, his death, so far as 
any benefit to us was concerned, was a total failure. 
Do we not suffer physical death now just as we did 
before his death? And are we not just as promptly 


£26 DEITY analyzed. 

and just as thoroughly damned now as we eyer were? 
From what, then, did he redeem us? Can you name 
a single form of suffering to which w r e are not just as 
liable now as we ever were? If not, can you point 
out a single benefit that we have derived from the 
death of Jesus? 

You may say that, by his death, Jesus put it into 
our own power to escape damnation. This, however, 
is not true. Indeed, I defy you to show a particle of 
proof to the effect that any greater percentage of the 
human race were damned before his death than are 
damned now. For want of faith, Which, try as I may, 
I have no power to exercise, I, for one, must, accord¬ 
ing to your teachings, be eternally damned. What 
good, then, has Jesus ever done me? And why 
should I love God and praise him for his miserable, 
his murderous, plan of salvation, so Called, which 
leaves me, without any fault of my own, to Writhe 
and scream—if I would scream—for ages without end, 
in the unutterable torments of fire and brimstone? 
Let those love him and praise him who owe him some¬ 
thing. To me, he has done an infinite wrong. With¬ 
out my consent, he has made me with such an organ¬ 
ization, and surrounded me with such influences, as 
render me utterly unable to believe certain things, and 
now, for this inability, which he himself has thus fixed 
upon me, he dooms me to eternal damnation. If I 
owe him anything, then, for thus making me on pur¬ 
pose to damn me, is it praises or is it curses ? If he 
were not more cruel than a fiend, would he not at 
least return me to the annihilation from which, with¬ 
out my consent, he called me, instead of compelling 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 



me to live forever, against my will, in the fearful 
flames of an awful hell? 

I do not believe that Jesus died for us at all. We 
were never condemned to die in the manner in which 
he died, and as to death in general, we still have to 
die, just the same as before. He was condemned to 
die on his own account, not on ours, and he died sim¬ 
ply because he could not help himself, or because he 
had made up his mind to die, and to thus become a 
martyr to his teachings. Since his body was a mortal 
human body, he must finally have died any way, just 
as do other men, and since lie died only once, that 
once must, of necessity, have been for himself. 

Suppose, however, that lie did die to save the whole 
human race from eternal woe, what did he do more 
than any one of us would do under similar circum¬ 
stancesWhere is the father or the mother who, 
with an absolute certainty, as had he, of entering at 
once into the unspeakable joys of heaven, 'would not 
thus a little earlier pass through the inevitable change 
called death for the sake of saving even one beloved 
’child from eternal burnings in fire and brimstone? Do 
not we, then, merit as much praise for what we would 
do, if we had a chance, as does Jesus for wdiat lie did 
do when he had a chance? And since Jesus, accord¬ 
ing to all orthodox teachings, was God himself, what 
was he doing in all this but acting out his own pleas- 
u re ? 

Besides all these things, a belief in this so-called 
vicarious atonement has a very pernicious influence 
upon the moral characters of thpse who entertain that 
belief. To these persons this plan of salvation standf*. 


228 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


as an ever open door of escape from all the conse¬ 
quences of wickedness. Jesus having already, as they 
believe, paid their sin bills in advance, these men think 
they have nothing to do but to claim the benefit of 
his act. In other words, they think that all they have 
to do is to take advantage of this universal bankrupt 
law and go clear. They are taught that to resort to 
this truly ignominious subterfuge is a highly meritori¬ 
ous act. In their insolent bigotry those who have gone 
through this ignominious form of moral bankruptcy 
are wont to claim that themselves are the only persons 
fit to enter heaven. Thev are wont to denounce all 
other persons as fit only for eternal burnings. 

Believing that they can just as easily evade the pay¬ 
ment of a large sin bill as they can of a small one, 
most persons who contemplate going into this vicari¬ 
ous form of bankruptcy are wont to run up very large 
sin bills. Yisit our prisons, and you will find that, 
with scarcely an exception, their inmates are firm be¬ 
lievers in this form of bankruptcy, and all intend, 
finally, by availing themselves of its provisions, to 
sneak into heaven. So of those who die upon the 
gallows. As might be expected, these persons are 
almost invariably firm believers in vicarious atone¬ 
ment, They almost invariably declare, too, that by 
means of this atonement their murder-blackened souls 
are going to swing right into the unspeakable joys of 
heaven. And why should they not go thus to heaven? 
Was notan executed criminal the first one to enter 
heaven on this highly demoralizing plan of salvation? 
Jesus was, indeed, as you teach, the frien4 of sinners. 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 2£9 

But who ever heard of his being a friend to those who 
are not sinners ? 

All of those who claim that they are going to heaven 
on this vicarious plan of salvation admit that they pos¬ 
sess no merit of their own ; that, in strict justice, they 
ought to be sent to hell; and that they are going to 
heaven entirely on the merits of another person who 
has been cruelly and unjustly punished for their 
offenses. Admitting that these persons tell the truth 
about themselves, and of this I have not the slightest 
doubt, I am free to say that I would rather go to hell - 
like a man, and in the company of men, than to go 
thus sneaking into heaven in any such manner, and 
with any such crowd. Go where I may, I will go on 
mv own merit. 


230 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


t 



LECTURE SIXTH. 

4 l * 

THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR.— Coxclvded: 

Having in my last lecture fully considered the ori¬ 
gin of the Christ idea, the conception and birth of 
Jesus, the nature of his vicarious atonement, etc., I 
propose in my present lecture to conclude the analysis of 
deity by noticing the personal history of Jesus, and the 
special prophecies which are supposed to point to him 
as the Messiah or Savior. In doing this I shall take 
the Bible as I find it, leaving its authenticity to be 
considered in a future course of lectures. 

Of the four evangelical writers, two. Mark and John, 
say not a word about the birth and the early life of 
Jesus. They start out abruptly in their respective 
writings with an account of the baptism of Jesus, 
which took place when he was about thirty years of 
age. The other two, Matthew and Luke, differ so 
widely in their accounts that, were it not for the name 
of Jesus, we would hardly suspect that they write 
concerning the same individual. 

In Matthew i, 18-20, we read : “ Now the birth of 

Jesus Christ was in this wise: When as his mother 
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came to¬ 
gether, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 
Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not 


TIIE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


281 


•willing to make her a public example,, was minded to 
put her away privily. But while he thought on these 
things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto 
him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, 
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that 
which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” 

On these three verses may be said to rest the entire 
structure of the Christian religion. If they contain 
nothing but truth ; if there really ever was such a 
being as the Holy Ghost; if he really was a God, and 
really did beget Jesus, then Christianity is evidently 
a true religion, whether it be the only true religion or 
not* If, on the other hand, there never was any such 
God as the Holy Ghost, or if he did not beget Jesus, 
then, of necessity, the Christian religion must be an 
imposition founded upon an absurd fable. Let us, 
then, carefully analyze the language of these verses, 
and see to what such an analysis will lead us. 

From the fact that Mary’s delicate condition was 
found out or detected, it is evident that she had been 
keeping it a secret. Had she herself made known her 
condition, it could not have been said that “she was 
found with child.” This secrecy on her part indicates a 
consciousness of guilt, or, at least, a feeling of shame. 

As to who it was that found out that she was with 
child, and as to how he found out this fact, the au¬ 
thor has not seen fit to inform us. Under the circum¬ 
stances, the omission of this information is extremely 
unfortunate. In an ordinary case of pregnancy, in 
which the mere fact of a woman’s being with child is 
the only question involved, such an omission might be 
a matter of very little importance. When, however, 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


232 

on pain of the most inhuman 'persecutions in this 
world, and of endless and unutterable torments in the 
world to come, we are required to implicitly believe 
that Mary “ was found with child of the Holy Ghost” 
it becomes a matter of the very highest importance 
that all the facts in the case be given, and that they 
be so established as to render unbelief in this wonder¬ 
ful ghost-baby story utterly impossible. We must 
believe the story, or else roast for billions upon bill¬ 
ions of ages in the flames of fire and brimstone, and 
then be no nearer the end of our torments than when 
we began. How important it is, then, that we believe 
the story ! But how can we believe it, if we have no 
power to do so ? And whence comes the power to 
believe it? From the evidence alone. We have no 
more power to believe without evidence than we have 
to fly without wings. Belief in anything is simply 
an effect, of which the evidence in the case is the 
cause. If the cause be sufficient, the effect is bound 
to follow. If the cause be insufficient then it is 
utterly impossible for the effect to follow. To be 
damned, therefore, for not believing, is simply to be 
damned for want of power—for not being subject to 
a certain effect, when no sufficient cause is brought to 
bear upon us to produce that effect. Just as reason¬ 
ably might God damn us for not being able to fly. 

Our will has no power, in any case, to control either 
our belief or our own unbelief. We believe certain 
things simply because we have no power to disbelieve 
them. We disbelieve certain other things simply be¬ 
cause we have no power to believe them. The whole 
thing depends entirely upon power; and. as I have 


THE MES3UH OE SAVIOR. 


233 


already shown, power, in regard to such things, de¬ 
pends entirely upon evidence. If the evidence for a 
certain thing be conclusive, then, in spite of our will 
to the contrary, we are bound to believe that thing. 
If, on the other hand, the evidence against a thing be 
conclusive, then, in spite of our will to the contrary, 
we are bound to disbelieve that thing. If our beliefs 
and our unbeliefs depended upon our wills, then we 
could just as easily believe or disbelieve one thing as 
another, provided we wished or willed to do so. 

From the fact, then, that our beliefs and our unbe¬ 
liefs are entirely involuntary on our own part, it is 
evident that there can be neither merit nor demerit in 
either belief or unbelief. It is just as right and proper, 
therefore, to reward or to punish the one as it is to 
reward or to punish the other. The doctrine that 
“ he that believeth not shall be damned,” is a mon¬ 
strously absurd and unjust doctrine. 

Of necessity, all evidence reaches us, and all belief 
is produced in us, through the medium of the five 
senses—seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. The best of all 
evidence, therefore, is that which reaches us through 
the medium of our own senses. Indeed, we rarely 
have pow r er to disbelieve that which we clearly see, 
hear, feel, etc., for ourselves. That evidence which 
we receive from another, we believe or disbelieve, in 
proportion to the credibility or the incredibility of 
that which is testified, and also in proportion to the 
confidence, or the want of it, which we have in the 
veracity of the witness. To be totally ignorant of 
the character for veracity of the witness is simply to 
be totally ignorant of the truth or the falsity of that 


234 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


concerning which he testifies. This is especially true 
when, as in the case before us, the thing testified is of 
a very improbable nature. 

What could be more improbable than that an utterly 
boundless, shapeless, and bodiless ghost should get a 
woman with child? My orthodox opposers them¬ 
selves admit that the occurrence of such an event is in 
the highest degree improbable. So very improbable-, 
indeed, do they regard the occurrence of such an event 
that no amount of historical evidence can make them 
believe that, with the exception of the one case in 
question, any such case has ever occurred. They also 
find themselves totally unable to believe that an event 
so extremely improbable will ever occur again. How, 
then, can they be so certain as they profess to be that 
an event so infinitely improbable ever occurred at all ? 
Outside of this highly improbable story, and of others 
equally improbable founded upon it, what do we know 
of this child-begetting Holy Ghost? Ho we know 
anything more of him than we know' of the Unholy 
Ghost, the Great Giascutis, or the Great Jumping Jingo? 
As every person who has ever informed himself in re¬ 
gard to the matter knows, the word ghost originallv 
meant simply breath. The term Holy Ghost, then, 
meant nothing more nor less than holy breath—such 
breath as is breathed forth by holy persons. “ And 
when he had said this lie breathed on them, and saitli 
unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ” (John xx, 
22). So, even at the present time; when a priest is 
ordained* this holy breath or Holy Ghost is breathed 
into him by the priests who ordain hi A* And can 
such breath beget children? If it can, \frhat does it 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


233 


beget thein with? And what might be the effect of a 
priest’s holy breath or Holy Ghost upon one of our 
own women? Is it not extremely probable that many 
tin unmarried woman has become a prospective mother 
while inhaling the truly dangerous breath of a priest? 

Be all this as it may, however, we have here a ghost 
never before seen or heard of abruptly introduced 
upon the stage in this grand farce to play the role of 
father to an unmarried woman’s baby; to subject her 
to the danger of disgrace, and even of death ; and to 
set a very bad example to other individuals of the male 
sex. Who, then, was this ghost? Whence did he 
come? What were his antecedents? In what form 
did he approach the young woman? Under what 
circumstances? Was it during the day, when she 
could see him, or at night, when she could not? How 
did he communicate to her the life-germ from which 
her child sprang? Was she acquainted with him? 
If not, how did she know he was the Holy Ghost? 
-How did she know that he was a ghost at all ? Did 
she feel him? If he had no body that she could see, 
hear, or feel, how could she know that he was of the 
male sex ? Indeed, how could she know anything at 
all about him? And if be had a body that she could 
see, hear, and feel, how could she be certain that he 
was not a man playing the role of the child-begetting 
ghost in question? Were not such vile tricks fre¬ 
quently played upon extremely pious and credulous 
women ? 

Admitting, however, that this young woman was 
gotten with child by a ghost,- how much better or more 
natural was her case than is that of a woman who is 



236 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


gotten with child by a man ? How would my ortho¬ 
dox opposers like to have this same old bachelor 
ghost, or some other ghost of the same kind, get their 
young daughters with child in this same manner? 
This may be a very beautiful doctrine until it is 
brought home to ourselves. Then we would rather 
the libidinous ghost would beget his young ones upon 
our neighbor’s daughters, and not upon our own. 
Would not such a ghost stir up a “hell of a time” in 
almost any of our families ( How many of my good 
orthodox sisters would be wiliing to lend their own 
bodies to be thus used by such a ghost? Would not 
every pure and natural woman rather have a loving 
husband for the father of her children? And would 
you think any more highly of one of your unmarried 
neighbor ladies if, like Mary, she should bear a child 
to a ghost, than you would if she should bear a child 
to the young man whom she dearly loves? 

The author of Matthew does not have Marv herself 
set up any claim to ghostly paternity for her unborn 
baby. He represents her as being entirely passive in 
the whole matter. As we now have it he is made to 
say that “ she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” 
The Holy Ghost part of this quotation, however, is 
pronounced by many Bible critics to be an interpola¬ 
tion or forgery, and to form no part of the story as 
originally written. In a future leclure I will show 
that this belief is well founded. Indeed its correctness 
is almost proved by the language which immediately 
follows these words: “Then Joseph, her husband, 
being a just man, and not willing to make her a public 
example, was minded to put her away privily.” From 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


237 


this it is clear that Joseph believed Mary to be guilty 
of adultery, a crime for which he had a legal right'‘to 
make her a public example ” by putting her to death 
in a public manner, and for which “ to put her away 
privily ” was deemed a light punishment. He could 
not have believed her to be thus guilty, however, thus 
worthy to be publicly executed as a warning to others, 
unless he had believed that she had had illicit inter* 
course with a man, But how could he have believed 
her to be thus guilty if, as we now read it, she had 
been “ found with child of the Holy Ghost?" Is it not 
evident, then, that she was merely “ found with child,” 
and that Joseph very naturally supposed that she was 
with child of a man ? Is it not evident that the Holy 
Ghost part of the finding in her case was an addition 
made to the story at a later time ? At any rate, if the 
Holy Ghost figured at all in the report as Joseph first 
heard it, that part of the report was evidently founded 
on testimony so very weak that it did not even create 
a doubt in Joseph’s mind in regard to Mary’s guilt 
He still fully believed her to be worthy to suffer death 
as “a public example.” He never for a moment 
thought of such a thing as letting her go unpunished. 
He would certainly “ put her away,” or out of the way, 
as the language evidently means, by putting her to 
death, according to the law. In the kindness of his 
heart, however, he felt disposed to lighten as far as 
possible, the horrors of this terrible punishment by 
having it inflicted upon her privately, thus sparing her 
the additional horrors of a public execution. 

“ But while he thought on these things”—while he 
was still revolving in his own mind whether, as an ex- 


238 


PEITY ANALYZED. 


ample to others, he should punish her publicly, or 
should listen to the pleadings of his own compassion¬ 
ate.heart, and inflict upon her privily the punishment 
required by law—he had a dream, in which he seemed 
to see an angel, and seemed to hear him say that Mary 
was with child of the Holy Ghost Being a very su¬ 
perstitious man—a believer in dreams, in ghosts, in 
pregnancy produced by ghosts, etc.—Joseph at once 
accepted his own dream—the creation of his ow n par-' 
tially dormant brain—as real information, coming 
from God, for the vindication of Mary s character. 
Upon the reception of this supposed information, 
therefore, he at once dismissed all thought of guilt on 
Mary’s part, and resolved that instead of punishing 
her he would marry her. 

If, then, the Holy Ghost part of the finding in 
Mary’s case was made by the same party that found 
her with child, why did Joseph need to be thus in¬ 
formed in a dream that she was with child of the Ploly 
Ghost? If previous to his dream he possessed the 
very same information on the subject that he seemed 
to receive in his dream, whv did his dream make so 
complete a change in his proposed conduct toward 
Mary? If, previous to his dream, he had known that 
she was with child of the Holy Ghost, would he have 
thought of such a thing as making “ her a public ex¬ 
ample? ” The only possible object of such example 
wx>uld have been to prevent other women from doing 
as Mary had done. And would Joseph have either 
wished or expected to thus prevent other women from 
becoming with child of the Holy Ghost? Believing, 
as he did, that, so far from being an indication of 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


239 


guilt, Holy Ghost pregnancy wa 3 an indication of 
divine favor, would he have even thought of putting 
Mary “ away privily ” if he had believed that her 
pregnancy was of the Holy Ghost ? 

Since, then, previous to his dream, he certainly did 
believe that Mary was a guilty woman, that she was 
worthy of punishment, and that she was totally unfit 
to be his wife, is it not evident that she had merely 
been “ found with child,” and that the limiting phrase 
“ of the Holy Ghost ” is an interpolation or forgery, 
added at a later date, for the purpose of making the 
finding in Mary’s case correspond with Joseph’s 
dream ? At any rate, it is evident that, previous to 
his dream, Joseph placed no confidence at all in the 
Holy Ghost part of Mary’s story, if any such part had 
ever been given. Must not that part of the story, 
then, if given at all, have been founded upon evi¬ 
dence much less satisfactory than that of a mere 
dream ? 

As we now have it, however, the Bible declares 
that Mary “ was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” 
The question, then, naturally arises, Who found her 
in that condition, and how did he know that her un¬ 
born babe was “of the Holv Ghost?” Were there 
any peculiar symptoms by which he could distinguish 
Holy Ghost pregnancy from ordinary pregnancy? If 
not, how could he possibly know that this was a case 
of genuine Holy Ghost pregnancy ? If there were any 
svmptoms peculiar to Holy Ghost pregnancy, what 
were.those symptoms, and from what previous cases 
oj this form of pregnancy had these symptoms been 
learned ? What was the name of the Holy Ghost ex- 




240 


DEITY ANALYZED 


pert who detected Mary’s delicate condition, and who 
so promptly pronounced hers a case of Holy Ghost 
pregnancy? Do we know anything at all in regard 
to his character for veracity, and for skill as a Holy 
Ghost detective ? If not, is his unsupported testimony 
in regard to such a matter of any value at all ? We 
have seen that Joseph, extremely credulous as he was 
in regard to such matters, did not believe a word of this 
pretended expert’s report concerning the Holy Ghost 
part of this case. This leaves us with nothing at all 
except Joseph’s dream upon which to base the doc¬ 
trine of the ghostly paternity of Mary’s baby. In my 
last lecture, however, I proved that this dream was 
totally worthless; that it was of no more value than 
would be a similar dream, if achieved by ourselves, in 
regard to some unfortunate young woman of our own 
neighborhood. 

So far from having Mary thus “ found with child,” 
so far from having Joseph thus believe her guilty, so 
far from having him thus think of punishing her, and 
so far from having him thus learn in a dream that the 
Holy Ghost was a star actor in this play, Luke has the 
whole matter, from the very beginning, all satisfacto¬ 
rily understood between Mary and her friends. 

In Matt, ii, 1-3, we read: “ Now when Jesus was 
born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the 
king, behold there came wise men from the east to Je¬ 
rusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the 
Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are 
come to worship him. When Herod the king had 
beard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem 
with him.” 


THE MESSIAH OH SAVIOR. 


241 


As the beginning of a romance this might do very 
vrell, but when claimed to be authentic history, it is 
certainly open to very grave criticisms. Who were 
those so-called wise men that came from the east? 
How many were there of them? And on whose au¬ 
thority were they called “ wise men ? ” In what did 
their supposed wisdom consist? From how far east 
of Jerusalem did they come? Were they Jews or 
foreigners? If Jews, why does the author so pomp¬ 
ously declare that they came from the east? Judea 
extended only a few miles east of Jerusalem—too few 
for the inhabitants on its eastern border to differ in 
any material respect from the rest of its inhabitants. 
What advantage, then, was there in their coming from 
the east? If they came from beyond the eastern bor¬ 
der of Judea, they must have come from some of the 
wild tribes of Arabia which were never noted for wise 
tnen. Since they left home after the birth of Jesus, 
and reached Bethlehem while he was still in the man¬ 
ger, they evidently could not have come from beyond 
Arabia. They must, therefore, have been either Jews 
or Arabs. 

If they were Jews, was it any mark of wisdom in 
them to go strolling about the streets of Jerusalem say¬ 
ing, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews ?” and 
declaring that they had “ come to worship him?” Could 
wise men from fifteen miles, or even from fifty miles, 
east of that city have supposed that the people of 
Jerusalem already knew of the obscure birth in a 
manger at Bethlehem of Mary’s illegitimate child, and 
that they had already recognized him as the future- 
king of the Jews? Would wise-men, if Jews, have 


242 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


dared to come thus boldly to Jerusalem, and proclaim 
to their own king, Herod, and to all the people, a suc¬ 
cessor to the Jewish throne—a successor, too, of low 
and even of dishonorable birth? Would wise men, 
if Jews, have dared thus before Herod’s face to de¬ 
clare that they had come to worship this new king? 
Would not such conduct have constituted high trea¬ 
son, and would not the so-called wise men who were 
guilty of it have been put to death as traitors? Be¬ 
sides all this, were Jews in the habit of worshiping 
their kings? If, when no one knew of the birth of a 
new king—if, simply because some unmarried woman 
of the lower class had borne a child which, as yet, 
differed in no respect from any other male child—a 
band of vagrants should go strolling about the streets 
of London, saying, “ Where is he that is born king of 
England?” and declaring that they had “come to wor¬ 
ship him,” would anybody regard them as wise men? 
Would they not rather be regarded as fit subjects for 
a lunatic asylum? 

If those so-called wise men were not Jews, of what 
nationality were they? As I have already shown, 
they must have belonged to some tribe of Arabians. 
But would wise men from any of those tribes have 
dared to come thus to Jerusalem and proclaim to the 
reigning monarch, and to all his subjects, a successor 
to his throne? And would wise men from any of 
those tribes have wished to worship a prospective king 
of the Jews? Were they in the habit of doing any 
such thing? 

Besides all these things, that star also requires some 
notice. Since it appeared in the east, and since those 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


243 


so-called wise men were traveling toward the west 

# ' ° j 

how did it manage to go before them, as. in the ninth 
verse we are assured that it did, until it stood over the 
place in which Jesus was? In order to go thus before 
them, would it not have had to appear in the west? 
How did those so called wise men know that this star 
indicated the birth of a new king of the Jews? Was 
such a star accustomed to appear at the birth of each 
new king of the Jews? And since these men had 
this star to guide them, why did they need to stop at 
Jerusalem to inquire where Jesus was? 

Besides all this, since there are only two classes of 
stars, fixed stars and planets, that star must, of neces¬ 
sity, have been either a fixed star or a planet From 
the fact that it moved before those so-called wise men, 
it could not have been a fixed star. Of necessity, then, 
it must have been a planet But what planet was it? 
In what kind of an orbit did it revolve? At what 
distance from the sun? At what rate per hour ? What 
was the length of its day? How many moons had it? 
What force made it move toward the place where 
Jesus lay? Was that place in the line of its orbit? 
What made it stand still over that place When was 
it created? Of what was it composed? And what 
finally became of it? 

If all these things were true, is it not rather strange 
that Luke does not say a word about them? In place 
of the wise men from the east, he has a lot of ignorant 
shepherds from the immediate neighborhood visit 
Jesus. The star he wisely omits entirely. If so won¬ 
derful a star had actually appeared, would he have 
thus failed to notice it? 


244 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


In Matt. ii, 12, we read: “And being warned of 
God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, 
they departed into their own country another way.” 
The parties referred to here were the same so-called 
wise men of whom I have been speaking. From the 
fact that “they departed into their own country,” it 
would seem that they did not belong to the country 
of the Jews in which they then were. Of this matter, 
however, I have already said enough. I notice this 
passage only because of the dream that is mentioned 
* in it Did all those men, at the same time, dream that 
dream, or did only one of them dream it for the whole 
company? If all of them dreamed it, would not so 
remarkable a coincidence have been noticed by our 
author? If only one of them dreamed it, how could 
the others know that it was from God? How many 
of you would believe one of your own neighbors if he 
should claim to have a dream from God ? Indeed, 
how could the dreamer himself know that his dream 
was from God ? Had dreams from God any peculiar 
characteristics by which they could be distinguished 
from other dreams, and was this dreamer certainly ac¬ 
quainted with those characteristics? 

From the thirteenth to fifteenth verses of this same 
chapter we learn that, being warned of God in a dream, 
Joseph, with Mary and her child, fled into Egypt, 
where he remained until after the death of Herod. 
This flight, taking place as it did immediately after 
the departure of the so-called wise men, must, of 
necessity, have taken place from Bethlehem, where 
Jesus was when those men left him. This, you plainly 
see, renders it utterly impossible for Joseph and hia 


THE MESSIAH OB SAVIOR. 


245 


family to have visited Jerusalem until after their re¬ 
turn from Egypt. Indeed, if they ever visited Jeru¬ 
salem at all, the:r visit must have been made many 
months, if not many years, after their return from 
This fact we learn from the twenty second 
verse, m which we are informed that, on coming out 
of Egypt, Joseph was afraid to return to Judea; and 
that, being warned as usual in a dream, he turned 
aside into Galilee and abode at Nazareth. 

The reason assigned for this flight into Egypt is that 
Herod, jealous of the incipient fame of Mary’s baby, 
wished to have it put to death. So determined, in¬ 
deed, is Herod represented to have been to accom¬ 
plish the destruction of the child Jesus, that, in order 
to be sure and not miss him, he “ sent forth and slew 
all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the 
coasts thereof, from two years old and under.” Why 
Herod slew all the children that were under two years 
of age we are not informed. It seems to me that he 
might safely have spared the females. Was he afraid 
that Jesus might be a female, and that this female 
might become king of the Jews? 

The reason assigned for Joseph’s being afraid to 
return into Judea is that he feared Archelaus, who 
had become king of the Jews in place of Herod his 
father. This fear must have remained with Joseph 
during the lifetime of Archelaus, or at least until Jo¬ 
seph became satisfied that Archelaus bad no designs 
against the life of Jesus. In any view of the case, as 
related by the author of Matthew, Jesus must have 
been several years old when he first entered Jerusalem, 
if, indeed, he ever entered it at all before he began his 



246 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


ministry. Let us see, then, how this account agrees 
with that given by the equally inspired author of 
Luke. 

In Luke ii, 21, 22, we read : “ And when eight days 
were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, 
his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the 
angel before he was conceived in the womb. And 
when the days of her purification according to the law 
of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to 
Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.” 

Beading on further, we learn that on this occasion 
sacrifices for Mary’s purification were offered in the 
temple, that Jesus was publicly presented to the Lord, 
that the venerable Simeon and the prophetess Anna 
had a great rejoicing over him, and that, when all these 
things were accomplished, Joseph and his family de¬ 
parted, not by flight at night into Egypt, but to their 
own home in Galilee. We also learn that, so far from 
being afraid to return into Judea, Joseph and his fam¬ 
ily were accustomed to go up to Jerusalem every year 
to the feast of the passover. 

At the very same time, then, that Matthew has Jo¬ 
seph and his family fleeing into Egypt to escape de¬ 
struction at the hands of Herod, Luke has them going 
publicly to Jerusalem, Herod’s own capital. At the 
very same time that Matthew has Jesus hid awav in 
Egypt, Luke has him openly offered to the Lord in 
Jerusalem. At the very time that Matthew has 
Herod butchering several thousand children, girls as 
well as boys, in order to be sure of the destruction of 
Jesus, Luke has Jesus offered to the Lord, in the most 
public manner, at Herod’s very door. At the very 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


247 


same time that Matthew has Joseph afraid to return 
into Judea at all, Luke has him, with his family, go 
up to Jerusalem, at least once every year. 

Since it is impossible for both of these accounts to 
be true, it devolves upon my opponents to show which 
one of them is true. If they decide in favor of Mat¬ 
thew, as does a friend of mine who is a Catholic 
priest, then they should clear up the story concerning 
the massacre of the infants of Bethlehem by Herod. 
Why does no other writer notice this truly notable 
event? Was not this during the Augustan age, when 
able writers were numerous? Was not Judea at that 
time a Homan province ? Would not the Roman gov¬ 
ernment have called Herod to account for so atrocious 
a crime? Is it credible that so horrid a crime was 
ever committed in a civilized country under the eyes 
of several writers, and yet only one of them notice it? 
Finally, is this story anything more or less than a 
mutilated version of the story of Kansa and Chrishna 
of India? 

After bringing him back from Egypt, Matthew 
abruptly drops Jesus, and then just as abruptly rein¬ 
troduces him upon the stage at the age of thirty years, 
as a worker of miracles and as a preacher of what, to 
most of the Jews, seemed new and strange doctrines. 
Why this long silence? Is it credible that a person 
whose birth had been announced by the sudden ap¬ 
pearance of a wonderful star in the eastern heavens, 
and by many other remarkable phenomena; is it 
credible that a person who, while yet an infant, had 
been worshiped by wise men from the east; is it cred¬ 
ible that a person whose birth had caused Herod and 



248 DEITY ANALYZED. 

all Jerusalem to be troubled; is it credible that a per¬ 
son on whose account all the children of an entire 
city, and of “ all the coasts thereof 1 ’ had been butch¬ 
ered—is it credible, I ask, that this person passed into 
oblivion so perfect that that all his friends and neigh¬ 
bors, even those who knew all the circumstances of 
his birth, came to believe that he was Joseph’s son ? 
Is it credible that for thirty years this person neither 
said nor did anything worthy of notice? 

Luke is almost as reticent as Matthew in regard to 
this long period in the life of Jesus. Luke, however, 
does mention one event which he says occurred when 
Jesus was twelve years of age. This was a disputa¬ 
tion which Jesus had with the doctors of divinity in 
the temple. In this disputation he is said to have 
astonished everybody by the wisdom of his answers, 
and when his parents reproved him for having left 
them, he is said to have replied : “ How is it that ye 
sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my 
Father’s business? ” After this, Luke drops Jesus for 
eighteen years. 

And now, let me ask, if, at the age of twelve years, 
Jesus had to be about his Father’s business—if at that 
early age he astonished everybody by the wonderful 
beginning which he made in his Father’s business, is 
it credible that he once abandoned that business, and 
for eighteen years did nothing to show that he was in 
any respect superior to other young men ? Why are 
all his pretended biographers silent in regard to this 
long period of his life? Were they all ignorant of 
that portion of his history, or did that portion contain 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


249 


something which, if known, would be fatal to the 
claims of the Christian church ? 

May not this suspicious silence be because Jesus 
spent those unaccounted-for years, or at least a portion 
of them, in the great school of philosophy at Alexan¬ 
dria learning the wise teachings of Confucius, Buddha, 
Christina, and others of the world’s great moral philoso¬ 
phers? Jesus taught no doctrines which had not already 
been taught by some of these great men. He taught no 
doctrines which were not, during the very time in 
question, taught in the great school to wliich I have 
referred. He often used almost the very words of 
Chrishna and other great teachers who had preceded 
him. Where, then, and when did he learn all these 
things ? 

It is true that without going to Alexandria Jesus 
might have learned all the doctrines that he ever 
taught All these doctrines were taught by the 
Essenes and the Therapeuts, both of which sects 
existed among the Jews at the time of which I am 
speaking. Jesus is generally supposed to have been 
an Essene, as Paul declares himself to have been. Be 
this as it may, it is certain that Jesus lived the life of 
an Essene, or rather of a Therapeut, and that his early 
followers were called Therapeuts, and not Christians. 
Those who deny these facts, and who claim that Jesus 
originated a new religion, simply expose their own 
gross ignorance on the subject, or their own woful 
want of common honesty, and at the same time make 
liars of many, if not all, of the early Christian writers. 

Justin Martyr, who is said to have been for a long 
time the companion of John, the beloved disciple of 




250 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


Jesus, says: “ For in saying that all things were made 
in this beautiful order by God, what do we seem to say 
more than Plato ? When we teach a general conflagra¬ 
tion, what do we teach more than the Stoics? By op¬ 
posing the worship of the works of men’s hands we 
concur with Menander the comedian, and by declaring 
the Logos the first-begotten of God, our master Jesus 
Christ, to be born of a virgin, without any human mix¬ 
ture, and to be crucified and dead, and to have risen 
again, and ascended into heaven, we say no more in 
this than what you say of those whom you style the 
sons of Jove.” From this great author who knew the 
Christian religion in its infancy we thus have the can¬ 
did confession that, so far from being a new religion, 
Christianity was simply a compilation of old pagan 
doctrines which had been taught for many ages. 

St. Augustine, the greatest of the Latin fathers, 
says: “What is now called the Christian religion has 
existed among the ancients, and was not absent from 
the beginning of the human race until Christ came in 
the flesh, from which time the true religion, which had 
existed already, began to be called Christian; and this 
in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been 
wanting in former times, but as having in later times 
received this name.” Were it necessary, similar testi¬ 
mony could be adduced from many others of the early 
Christian writers. 

If, then, Jesus was a God, and, without learning any¬ 
thing, possessed a knowledge of all things, why did he 
not teach something new—something that mere men 
had not been able to find out and to teach before his 
time? And why did he wait till he was thirty years 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


251 


of age before he began teaching anything? Did he 
not know as much, and possess as much power, at three 
years of age as he did at thirty ? If so, why did he not 
begin teaching and performing miracles at three years 
of age or earlier? If all his works had been performed 
before he was three years of age, before he had time 
to learn them of men, would they not have been a 
thousand times more convincing to mankind than they 
were when performed by a middle-aged man who had 
plenty of time and opportunity to learn all these 
things? -Should not a God have been a little more 
successful than Jesus was? 

If, however, on the other hand, Jesus was a mere 
man, and had to learn all his doctrines before he could 
preach them, and all his wonderful feats before he could 
perform them, then we can readily understand why he 
did not appear before the public till he was thirty 
years of age, and also why all his biographers are so 
totally silent in regard to so large a portion of his life. 
If the world to-day knew that Jesus had spent many 
Tears in the schools of the Therapeuts and others, 
learning the doctrines which he afterwards preached, 
and the feats which he afterwards performed, what 
would become of the Christian church, and of the 
power, the bread and the butter, of her vast armies of 
worse than useless priests? Have not the priests 
always held that when ignorance pays better than 
knowledge it is folly to render the people wise? 

In John xiv, 12, we read: “Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that Ido 
he shall do also ; and greater works than these shall he 
do.” From this it is clear that inpn can perform $s 




DEITY ANALYZED 


greai miracles as was ever performed by Jesus. The 
miracles, then, which he performed were no proof at 
all that he was anything more than a man. This fact 
being established, I shall notice only a few of those 
miracles. The text w r hich I have quoted also proves 
that all those of my opponents who profess to be 
believers on Jesus, but who nevertheless are unable to 
perform all the works that Jesus performed, are noth¬ 
ing more nor less than hypocrites and impostors. 

' In speaking of the crucifixion, Matthew says that 
from the sixth to the ninth hour there was darkness 
over all the land ; that there was an earthquake, that 
the vail of the temple was rent in twain ; that the 
rocks were rent; and that the bodies of many saints 
arose from their graves, went into the city, and appeared 
unto manv. 

yJ 

None of the other gospel writers say a word about 
these things. IIow are we to account for this strange 
silence? Do not my opponents claim that some of 
these writers, if not all of them, were present at the 
crucifixion ? If, then, any such wonderful phenomena 
had actually occurred, would not these writers, these 
eye-witnesses, have been sure to notice them ? Seeing 
these wonderful things, would not the Jews and the 
Romans have been at once converted ? Far gone as I 
am in unbelief, such things would make a believer 
of me. 

But did these things, especially the rising of the 
bodies of the saints, ever occur? If they did, whose 
were those bodies which thus so unceremoniously left 
their graves, where they ought to have remained, and 
•who went into the city to frighten women and children ? 


TI1E MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


258 


I was not aware that the Jews ever had any saints; 
and it was rather early for Christian saints to come 
popping up in so abrupt a manner. How many of 
those bodies were there? Who saw them rise? Who 
counted them? Who saw them go into the city? 
Who saw them after their arrival in the city ? How 
did their former friends receive them? What did 
they do while in the city? What excuse did they 
offer for their unseemly conduct? Were they real liv¬ 
ing organizations, composed of flesh, blood, and bones? 
Had they lungs, stomachs, intestines, sexual organs, 
etc., and did these organs perform the same func¬ 
tions that they perform in other living human bodies? 
Were these the same emaciated bodies that had been 
laid aside in death ? If not, what bodies were they? 
Were they clothed or naked? If clothed, where did 
they get their clothes? Hid they buy them, or were their 
old clothes resurrected together with themselves? Did 
those bodies have souls or spirits in them ? If they 
did have, whence did those .spirits come? Had they, 
like the bodies, been resting in the grave, or did they 
merely happen to be strolling back from heaven just 
at the time they were needed? Finally, what became 
of those saints? Hid they remain among men, and 
die again, or did they—flesh, blood, bones, clothes, and 
all—manage somehow to clamber up to heaven ? These 
are fair questions, and our priests should be able to 
answer them. 

Matthew says that, on a certain occasion, two men 
came out of the tombs and met Jesus, who cast out of 
them a legion of devils. What devils are, I do not 
profess to know, but from the fact that those of which 




DEITY ANALYZED. 


254 

we are speaking conversed intelligently with Jesus in 
good Hebrew, they must have been intelligent beings 
like men. How many legions of these devils still re¬ 
mained in the two men after this one legion had been 
ordered out we are not informed. We are informed, 
however, that at their own request the legion that 
were ordered out were permitted to enter into a herd 
of swine; and that, as soon as these poor, persecuted 
devils were all comfortably established in their new 
quarters, the swine took it into their silly heads to run 
down a steep place into the sea and drown themselves. 

Luke says that on this occasion there was only one 
man met Jesus, and that he came out of the city, and 
not out of the tombs. He says, too, that the swine 
were drowned in a lake and not in the sea. He also says 
that, this astounding miracle was performed in the 
country of the Gadarenes, and not, as Matthew has it, 
in that of the Gergesenes. 

These two conflicting accounts cannot possibly both 
be true. If either of them be true, which one is it, 
and what proof have we of its truth? If this mon¬ 
strous hog-and-devil story be at all credible, what is 
there incredible in the stories of Gulliver, or of Sind- 
bad the Sailor? 

A legion contained about five thousand individuals. 
How large, tliep, could those devils have been if so 
vast a number found comfortable lodgings and an 
abundance of necessary supplies inside of one man’s 
body, and that, too, without materially increasing his 
size or impeding his motion? Of what form were 
they? In what part of the man did they reside? 
Whence did they originate? What form of govern- 


THK MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 2^5 

ment had they inside of that man’s body ? Who was 
theii chief ruler? At which end of the man was their 
port of entry ? What were their occupations? When 
ordered out of the man, why did they wish to enter 
into the swine ? Was it to get food, or to keep warm? 
At which end of the swine did they make their en- 
tiance ? What was their order of march—bv twos, by 
fours, or by platoons ? Were they all males, or were 
both sexes represented among them? What effect 
upon the pork market had their entrance into the 
swine? When the swine ran down into the sea and 
were drowned, what became of the devils? Were 
they also drowned? If not, why were they never 
again heard of? 

And now, let me ask, can you be so totally blinded ' 
by priestcraft, so utterly bereft of reason, as to believe 
that a small nation of intelligent beings ever thus 
lived inside of a man, or of a hog? If you can be¬ 
lieve this monstrous story, what absurdity is there 
that you cannot believe ? 

Matthew says that on a certain occasion Jesus healed 
two blind men. Luke, speaking of the same occasion, 
says that only one blind man was healed. Do they 
both tell the truth ? Matthew says that Judas took 
his own life by hanging himself. The author of Acts 
declares that Judas died from the effects of a fall, 
which seemed to be entirely accidental. Are both of 
these accounts true? Did poor Judas, indeed, die at 
two different times, in two different places, and from 
two different causes? Seeming to be a little perplexed 
in regard to this matter, Dr. Clarke suggests that Judas 
probably died of diarrhoea. Matthew says that Judas 




250 


deity analyzed. 


gave back to the priests the money that he had re¬ 
ceived for betraying Jesus, and that with it they 
bought the potter’s field. In Acts, however, we learn 
that Judas kept that money, and with it bought him¬ 
self a field. Can both accounts be true? Mark says 
that Jesus was crucified at the third hour. John puts 
the crucifixion after the sixth hour. Do they both 
tell the truth ? Matthew declares that both the thieves 
that were crucified with Jesus reviled him. Luke de¬ 
clares that only one of these thieves reviled Jesus. 
Can both accounts be true ? 

John says that the first visit to the sepulcher was 
•made by Mary Magdalene alone, who came while it 
was yet dark. Matthew says that the first visit was 
made by two women, who came as the day began to 
dawn. Mark says that the first visit was made by 
three women, who came about the rising of the sun. 
Luke says that the first visit was made by five or more 
women, who came very early. Are v T e to be eternally 
damned if we find ourselves unable to believe all four 
of these contradictory stories? 

John says that when his one woman arrived at the 
sepulcher she saw nothing at all. Matthew says that 
when his two women arrived they saw an angel of the 
Lord sitting down on the outside of the sepulcher. 
Mark says that when his three women arrived they saw 
a young man sitting down on the inside of the sepul¬ 
cher. Luke says that when his five or more women 
arrived they saw two men standing up. And now. in 
order to escape damnation, how many of these contra¬ 
dictory stories are we obliged to believe ? 
r Mark says that, after his resurrection, Jesus appeared 


THE MESSIAH UR SAVIOR. 


first of all to Mary Magdalene alone, and that it was 
she who told the disciples and others. Matthew, deal¬ 
ing in twos as usual, has Jesus make his first appear¬ 
ance to two Marys, and has them tell the others. 
These two writers have Jesus make his first appear¬ 
ance in Jerusalem. Luke has him make his first 
appearance to two men, at some distance from Jerusa¬ 
lem. Which of these accounts is true ? 

Matthew says that after his resurrection Jesus first 
met his disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Luke has 
this first meeting take place in a room at Jerusalem. 

Must we believe both accounts or be damned ? 

Luke has Jesus make his final ascent into heaven 
from Bethany. Mark has him make it from a room 
in Jerusalem. The Acts has him make it from Mount 
Olivet. Matthew has him make it, or, at least, take his 
final leave of his disciples, on a mountain in Galilee. 
John has him do this at the sea of Tiberias. If any 
one of these five contradictory accounts be true, which 
one is it? 

These are only a few of the many contradictions and 
absurdities with which these books are filled. In the 
eyes of intelligent persons, however, these few are suffi¬ 
cient to utterly condemn the books in which they are 
found. 

Since his whole claim to Godship depended upon his 
resurrection from the dead and his ascension into 
heaven, why did not Jesus perform these, his crowning 
acts, in the sight of all the people? By so doing he 
would in a few moments have done more to convince 
the world of his divinity than has been done in nearly 
nineteen hundred years by his armies of priests, aided 


258 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


though they have nearly always been by those mighty 
persuaders, the sword, the stake, the rack, and other 
instruments of torture. Why, then, did he, after his 
resurrection, go slipping about as if he were afraid to 
be seen ? Did he fear a second crucifixion ? Why 
did he never appear to any only a few persons who 
were all deeply interested in having the world believe 
in his resurrection? Were not these interested parties 
the very ones whose testimony in such a case was of 
the least value ? 

You may say that on one occasion he did appear to 
over live hundred persons at once. But what proof 
have we that he did this? Who were those five hun¬ 
dred persons? How many of them ever testified that 
they had seen Jesus on that occasion, and to whom did 
they testify? Paul alone notices this wonderful ap¬ 
pearance, and he says that the five hundred and more 
who witnessed it were brethren. But were the breth¬ 
ren already sufficiently numerous to assemble in so 
large congregations? Why does no one but Paul 
notice this wonderful appearance ? And did he believe 
that any such appearance had ever been made ? If he 
did, was he not a beliver in the resurrection of Jesus? 
How, then, could he have thought that he was doing 
God service in killing other believers in the resurrec¬ 
tion? And why did it require a future miracle to 
convince him that Jesus had, indeed, arisen from the 
dead? If Paul ever heard that Jesus, after his resur¬ 
rection, had been seen by five hundred persons, he cer¬ 
tainly did not himself believe that report. How, then 
could he expect us to belive it on his single unsupport¬ 
ed testimony, especially when he plainly intimates in 


THE MESSIAH OH SAVIOR. 


2o9 


another place that he occasionally lied for the glory of 
God? May not this account of the appearance of 
Jesus be one of the very lies to which he refers? 

Nearly all the nations of the east have equally well 
authenticated accounts of the ascension into heaven of 
some of their own distinguished personages. The idea 
of thus ascending bodily into heaven is of purely pagan 
origin, and is still extremely popular with nearly all 
persons who are sufficiently ignorant to believe that 
there is a firmament or heaven standing fixed over a 
flat and stationary earth. Since science, however, has 
totally dissipated this firmament or solid heaven—the 
only heaven that either pagans or Christians ever had 
—all intelligent persons have, as a matter of course, 
come to regard the idea of such bodily ascensions into 
heaven as supremely ridiculous. What is heaven now, 
and where is it? 

In order to be above the earth, as the Bible teaches 
that it is, heaven must, of necessity, like the atmos¬ 
phere, surround the earth on all sides, and must also, 
of equal necessity, like the atmosphere, accompany the 
earth in her revolutions around the sun. In other 
words, heaven, like the atmosphere, is simply an invis¬ 
ible appendage or envelope of the earth ; a hollow 
sphere whose center coincides with the center of the 
earth. Were it necessary, I could prove by hundreds 
of passages in the Bible that heaven is always directly 
above the earth, and that, consequently, it must thus 
surround her, like a hollow sphere, and accompany her 
in all her sublime revolutions around the sun. 

And is this the only Leaven into which Jesus 
ascended ? That it is, we learn from the fact that he 


260 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


passed right upward from the earth, and from the fact 
that during his ascension he was distinctly visible to 
those from whom he had just parted. The earth is 
known to move forward in her orbit at the almost 
inconceivable velocity of 67,000 miles an hour a ve¬ 
locity considerably greater than that of a rifle ball. If, 
then Jesus and the heaven into which he was ascending 
had not partaken of the earth’s motion, would he 
have been visible at all? Would not the earth have 
•instantlv carried his friends onward out of sight of 
him, and would he not in a few moments have been 
left dangling in empty space, far behind the earth i 
Must he not, then, be still in this heaven, within a few 
miles of the earth, riding with us around the sun? 
And must not God also be in this same heaven, enjoy¬ 
ing this same ride? 

If, then, our planet is thus accompanied, as it must be, 
by its own peculiar heaven and its own peculiar God, 
is it not fair to assume that every other planet is in 
like manner accompanied by its own peculiar god and 
its own peculiar heaven? Why should our little 
planet alone be blessed with these things? And if 
they have no heaven in which to continue their ex¬ 
istence, what becomes of the righteous of other planets 
when they die? Do they all come to our heaven? 
Would it not be utterly impossible for those at an 
infinite distance from our earth ever to reach our 
heaven? Besides this, if God has charge of an infinite 
number of mighty worlds and systems of worlds, why 
should he have selected our little earth as the place 
of his abode, and as the final dwelling-place of all the 
.saintsof this infinitude of worlds? Why should he 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


261 


have given his only begotten son for the salvation of 
the inhabitants of our world alone, and why are none 
but the inhabitants of our world ever mentioned in 
God’s word as having anything to do with our heaven? 

If, however, heaven be not thus connected with the 
earth and with her motions, then where is it located, 
and of what does it consist? Does it belong to the 
solar system ? If it does, is it a planet or a comet, 
and in what respect is it better than the earth ? If it 
is neither a planet nor a comet, what is it? Does it 
revolve around the sun, or does it, unlike all other 
bodies, remain stationary? Between the orbits of 
which two planets is it situated ? How does it retain 
its position in space? How many millions of miles 
farther from it are we at some times than we are at 
others? How much longer does it take us to reach it 
from the most distant point than it does from the 
nearest point? And what means of conveyance have 
we for journeys so immense? 

If heaven be not within the solar system, how far 
away is it, and in what system is it situated? Why 
should a preference have been gi ven to that system ? In 
what respect is that system better than the solar sys¬ 
tem, and how long does it take us to pass from earth 
to heaven ? 

When we come to examine the matter in the light 
of reason, science, and common sense, does it not be¬ 
come clear that the whole idea of a local heaven rests 
entirely upon the now exploded idea of a firmament or 
solid sky, standing above a stationary earth? In 
order to retain your heaven, then, are you not com¬ 
pelled to rotain also your 11 £> Lit t/1 ot m i ^ cii t<ll^ 


262 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


your solid sky, etc.? Ask your priests to clearly de¬ 
fine the location of the heaven which they preach, and 
you will at once learn that they know no more about 
such a place than they know about the great giascutis, 
or the great jumping jingo. Better have them locate 
heaven, then, before you pay them for those buncombe 
speeches of theirs which they call sermons. 

In your despair, however, you may claim that Jesus 
and his works were foretold by the prophets. This I 
deny, and defy you to point out a single passage in 
the Old Testament which, when taken with its con¬ 
text, can be fairly so construed as to make it, even 
vaguely, refer to Jesus. 

In Matt, i, 23, we read: “Behold, a virgin shall be 
with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall 
call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, 
God with us. 1 ’ This is the first, the plainest, and 
by far the most important of all the passages quoted 
in the New Testament from the Old, and claimed to 
be prophecies of Jesus. If, then, this passage proves 
to have no reference whatever to Jesus, what can we 
hope from any of the others? 

The language which Matthew professes to quote 
wasspoken by Isaiah to Ahazkingof Judah. At the 
time it was spoken, Ahaz was greatly troubled because 
of the approach of the united forces of his enemies, 
the king of Israel and the king of Syria. Isaiah, 
therefore, pretending to be God’s mouth piece, as Ba¬ 
laam’s ass had been on a former occasion, undertook 
to encourage Ahaz by declaring that the two kings 
whose approach so troubled Ahaz should not prevail 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR 


263 


against him, and that in a short time their own king* 
doms should be rendered desolate. 

In order to make Ahaz believe these declarations, 
Isaiah informed him that God would confirm them by 
a certain sign, which Isaiah proceeded to describe as 
follows: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a 
son, ar.d shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and 
honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the 
evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall 
know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land 
that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her 
kings ” (Is. vii, 14-16). 

The emergency which rendered the sign necessary 
being immediate, the sign itself, to be of any value, 
had, of necessity, to be immediate also. So far from 
being able to wait seven hundred and fifty years—as 
your priests would have him wait—for Mary and her 
son to be signs of the things predicted, Ahaz had to 
have a sign before the close of the war in which he 
was at that very time engaged. Isaiah, therefore, 
without delay, proceeded to prepare the sign, God 
having very little, if anything, to do in the matter. 
His manner of preparing this sign Isaiah describes as 
follows: “And I took unto me faithful witnesses 
to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son 
of Jeberechiah. And I went unto the prophetess; 
and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the 
Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For 
before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My 
father and my mother, the riches of Damascus and 
the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the 
king of Assyria ” (If*. 8, 2-4). 


264 


DEITY ANALYZED 


Having thus himself selected his own child to be a 
sign on this occasion, as he had doubtless selected his 
other children to be signs on former occasions, Isaiah, 
in the eighteenth verse of the same chapter, boasts: 
“Behold. I and the children whom the Lord hath 

• t 

given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from 
the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion.” 

The famous virgin in question, then, was no other 
than Mrs. Isaiah, the prophet’s own wife, who was 
already the mother of several children, and who, like 
a sensible woman and a good wife, conceived of her 
own husband, and not—as your priests would have 
you believe that Mary did seven hundred and fifty years 
afterwards—of an old bachelor ghost. In order that 
the world might be sure that no ghost had anything 
to do with this achievement, Isaiah, as he informs us, 
took two faithful witnesses present to see, and to re¬ 
cord that he himself begat the child in question. 
Had the ghost who, as your priests would have you 
believe, afterwards begat Jesus used similar precau¬ 
tion, and had two faithful witnesses present to see 
and to record that no man had anything to do with 
his achievement, the world would be far more certain 
than they now are that Jesus was indeed the son of 
the said ghost. 

The child, then, to which this so-called prophecy 
refers, was, as you see, begotten and born just as are 
all other children—begotten and born, too, seven 
hundred and fifty years before the birth of Jesus. 
Besides this, the child in question was never called 
Jesus, nor Immanuel, but Maher-shalal-hash-baz. As 
to his mother boing a virgin, that amounts to .nothing 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


265 


M all. Every Bible critic knows that in ancient times, 
and especially among the Jews, the word virgin was 
hot restricted, as it now usually is, to women who had 
never known a man, but was applied to all virtuous 
women, and even to virtuous men, whether they were 
hiarried or single. A true wife, a good mother, was 
just as much a virgin as was a woman who had never 
known a man. Although Mrs. Isaiah had certainly 
known her husband, yet, being a virtuous woman, a true 
w r ife, she was still a virgin. Your educated priests all 
know these things, but it is not to their interest for 
the people to know them. Hence the general igno¬ 
rance in regard to these matters. 

All that this pretended prophecy of Jesus amounts 
to, then, is that in order to encourage his king, Isaiah 
staked his reputation as a prophet upon the result of 
the war in which the king at that very time was en¬ 
gaged. If Isaiah proved a true prophet, then, before 
a child, that was to be immediately begotten, could 
be born, and could be able to say father and mother— 
that is, within three years at most—Ahaz was to see 
his enemies utterly overthrown. Unfortunately for 
Ahaz, however, and for Isaiah’s reputation as a 
prophet, the sign utterly failed. So far from being 
driven out of their own kingdoms, according to 
Isaiah’s prediction, those two kings beat Ahaz, killed 
over a hundred and twenty thousand of his men, and 
carried away as captives over two hundred thousand 
women and children. These facts we learn from the 
twenty-eighth chapter of second Chronicles. This pre¬ 
tended prophecy, then, had no reference whatever to 
Jesus, and was, moreover, an extremely poor guesa 


266 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


Thus crumbles the main prophetic prop of that form of 
priestcraft called Christianity. 

Under the circumstances with which he was sur-. 
rounded Ahaz could not be otherwise than filled with 
anxiety and over-burdened with business cares. Mes¬ 
sengers were constantly arriving with the most fearful 
intelligence. The invading forces were far superior 
to his own. and defeat at their hands involved death 
or slavery to both himself and his people. All around 
him were uproar and confusion, and he, to whom all 
looked for safety, was himself beginning to tremble 
under the terrible panic that had seized upon his peo¬ 
ple. As Isaiah himself very forcibly expresses it, the 
king’s “heart was moved, and the heart of his people, 
as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.” 
To encourage him, therefore, under these peculiarly 
trying circumstances, Isaiah, as I have already stated, 
staked his own reputation as a prophet upon the pre¬ 
diction which I have described. 

This is substantially the story as told by Isaiah him¬ 
self, and when thus told, it is natural and reasonable. 
When told, however, as your priests tell it, what could 
be more unnatural or more unreasonable? They would 
have you believe that, amid the general alarm and 
confusion of the occasion—when the king was over¬ 
burdened with business and anxiety—Isaiah came and 
began to prate' to him about a young woman who, 
seven hundred and fifty years afterwards,-was to have 
a baby begotten by an old bachelor ghost. They 
would have you believe that Isaiah proposed this 
ghost-baby affair as a sign by which Ahaz was to 
know what was to be the result of the war in which 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


267 


at that very time he was engaged. Can two intelli¬ 
gent priests, while preaching this supremely ridiculous 
stuff, look each other in the face without laughing? 

Do you suppose that Isaiah was fool enough at such 
a time to prate to the king about such things as this 
ghost and its supposed offspring? Would the king 
have listened to any such nonsense? Would he have 
cared who was to have a baby seven hundred and 
fifty years afterwards, or who was to be the father of 
the baby ? How would it be now, if, on the eve of a 
great battle, some fool should come to prate such non¬ 
sense to the commander-in-chief of a great army? 

After describing various circumstances connected 
with the crucifixion of Jesus, John says: “For these 
things were done that the scripture should be ful¬ 
filled, A bone of him shall not be broken/’ Here we 
are gravely informed that the language concerning the 
bone had been spoken prophetically concerning Jesus 
—that it was his bones which were not to be broken, 
and that, in order to fulfill this prophecy, and, by so 
doing, to condemn themselves, his executioners re¬ 
frained from breaking his bones. 

The scripture which John professes to quote, but 
which, in fact, he grossly misquotes, is found in Ex. 
xii, 46, and with its context reads as follows : “ In 

one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth 
aught of the flesh abroad out of the house: neither 
shall ye break a bone thereof.” This language, you 
perceive, is commandatory, and not prophetical. It 
was spoken by Moses, not concerning Jesus, whom 
the Hebrews were never commanded to kill and eat, 
and who did not live till about fifteen hundred years 


268 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


afterwards; but concerning the ram which each family 
of the Hebrews were commanded to kill, to roast, and 
to eat, within a few days, at what was called the feast 
of the passover. As I have already said, John grossly 
misquotes the language of this command. By chang¬ 
ing the gender of the pronoun, and both the mood 
and the tense of the verb, he entirely changes both 
the construction and the meaning of the whole pas¬ 
sage, and thus renders his pretended quotation a vile 
imposition or forgery. 

No sane man, I suppose, will attempt to deny that 
all portions of the command in question refer to the 
same thing. If, then, any portion of that command 
refers to Jesus, all the other portions must, of neces¬ 
sity, refer to him also. By simply using the word 
Jesus, then, in place of the word lamb, we will have 
the meaning of the whole command—of the whole 
prophecy, if you prefer this term—according to the 
rendering given of it by John and your priests. “Your 
Jesus shall be without blemish, a male of the first 
year: you shall take it out from the sheep, or from the 
goats: and ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth 
day of the same month: and the whole assembly of 
the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 
And they shall take of the blood and strike it on the 
two side-posts, and on the upper door-post of the 
houses wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat 
the flesh in that night roast with fire, and unleavened 
bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. A 
foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof. In 
one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


269 


aught of the flesh abroad out of the house: neither 
shall ye break a bone thereof.” 

Here are six verses, and in order to make them ap¬ 
ply to Jesus I have changed only one word in them 
all. In order to make the last clause alone of the last 
verse apply to Jesus, John makes five changes of 
words, although the clause contains only seven words. 
Besides this, as I have already stated, he makes one 
change in gender, one in mood, and one in tense— 
eight changes in a clause of only seven words. By 
this abominable mutilation he undertakes to change a 
command into a prophecy, a ram into a God. 

And now, let me ask, does not all of this scripture 
apply to Jesus just as much as does the last clause? 
In order to have the whole pretended prophecy ful¬ 
filled, then, should not John have had Jesus roasted 
and eaten, as well as exempted from having his bones 
broken ? Thus falls another of the props of priestcraft. 

Speaking of Joseph, Matthew says: “When he 
arose he took the young child and his mother by 
night and departed into Egypt, and was there until 
the death of Ilerod : that it might be fulfilled which 
was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out 
of Egypt have I called my son.” The language which 
Matthew here fasely pretends to quote is found in 
Hos. xi, 1, and reads as follows: “When Israel was 
a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of 
Egypt” The son, then, that was called out of Egypt, 
was the Hebrew nation, and not Jesus. This fact is 
made still more clear by Ex. iv, 22, 23, in which we 
read: “And thou slialt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith 


270 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. And 
I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me.” 

As I have alroady intimated, Matthew grossly mis¬ 
quotes Hosea’s language. Speaking, as he does, of a 
past event, Hosea very properly uses the past or his¬ 
torical tense. Matthew, however, quotes him in the 
preterit or perfect tense. Hosea writes son with a 
small s, thus clearly showing that he did not apply 
the word to the deity. In his pretended quotation, 
however, Matthew writes son with a capital S, thus 
falsely claiming that Hosea did apply the word to the 
deity. What are we to think of the honesty of a 
writer who, like Matthew, to accomplish a certain ob¬ 
ject, habitually mutilates and changes the meaning of 
all the language he professes to quote? 

From all this, it is clear that if the scripture in ques¬ 
tion refers to Jesus, then Jesus was the Hebrew nation, 
and the Hebrew nation was Jesus. You may claim, 
however, that in the loins of an ancestor of that gen¬ 
eration Jesus was called out of Egypt with the Hebrew 
nation, and that, consequently, the language in ques¬ 
tion does apply to Jesus. This may all be true, if 
Jesus was a mere man, and had a male ancestor among 
the Hebrews who were called out of Egypt. If, how¬ 
ever, as you profess to believe, Jesus never had a 
human father, then he could not possibly have been 
thus called out of Egypt in the loins of an ancestor. 
Indeed if, in the time of Moses, God called his son out 
of Egypt, the language in question is no prophecy at 
all, and, consequently, never required any fulfilment 
Why, then, did Jesus, many centuries afterwards, have 
to go down into Egypt in order that, by being called 


THE MESSIAH OH SAVIOR. 


271 


out thence, he might fulfill this same scripture? In 
attempting to palm off upon the world as a prophecy 
of Jesus this purely historical statement concerning 
the Hebrews, Matthews is simply guilty of a mon¬ 
strous imposition. And thus falls still another of the 
props of priestcraft. 

In Matt ii, 23, we read: “ And he came and 

dwelt in a city called Nazareth : that it might be ful¬ 
filled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be 
called a Nazarene .” Here, again, according to his cus¬ 
tom, Matthew grossly misquotes the language of this 
pretended prophecy. None of the prophets ever used 
any such language as that which Matthew pretends to 
quote from them, or conveyed any such meaning. 

The scripture to which Matthew evidently refers is 
found in Jud. xiii, 5, and reads as follows: “For lo, 
thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor 
shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Naza - 
rite unto God from the womb.” This language was 
spoken not to Mary, concerning her own son Jesus, but 
nearly twelve hundred years before Mary’s time, to the 
wife of Manoah, concerning her son Samson. The 
passage declares that the child shall be a Nazarite , and 
not as Matthew misquotes it, that he shall be called a 
Nazarene, 

Although the words Nazarene and Nazarite are 
somewhat similar in farm , their similarity is entirely 
accidental. It arises from no similarity of meaning. 
In meaning , the words are no more similar than are the 
words Londoner and Freemason . Indeed, the word 
Nazarene bears exactly the same relation to the word 
Nazarite that the word Londoner bears to the word 


DEITY ANALYZED. 


979 

* 4 % 

Freemason. As a Londoner is simply an inhabitant 
of London , so a Nazarene was simply an inhabitant of 
Nazareth. With a Nazarite , however, the case was 
quite otherwise. As does a Freemason now, so did a 
Nazarite then, take his name from his connection with a 
certain fraternity, or from his being bound by a solemn 
oath or vow to perform certain duties which are not 
required to be performed by other men. 

As it is with a Londoner now, so it was with a Naz¬ 
arene then; in regard to his mode of living, he was 
under no more restrictions than were the inhabitants 
of any other Jewish city. A. Nazarite, on the contrary, 
was bound to let his hair grow without cutting, and to 
abstain from the use of all luxuries, especially wine, 
vinegar, and grapes. Samson, Samuel, and John the 
Baptist are all the Nazarites that I can find mentioned 
in the Bible. 

Being an inhabitant of Nazareth, Jesus was very 
properly called a Nazarene. He was not so called 
“from the womb," however, as he should have been, 
had the so-called prophecy in question had any refer¬ 
ence to him. So far from being a Nazarite, he in¬ 
dulged in luxuries to such an extent that when the 
people saw him they were wont to say, “ Behold, a 
gluttonous man and a wine-bibber.” By changing the 
word Nazarite into Nazarene in his pretended quota¬ 
tion, Matthew proves himself to have been either a 
knave or a fool; or, at best, a very poor punster—a 
mere player upon words. In any view of the case, his 
writings are totally worthless. 

In John xii, 14, 15, we read : “ And Jesus, when he 
had found a young ass, sat thereon ; as it is written, 


THE MESSIAH OR SAVIOR. 


m 


Fear not. daughter of Sion : behold thy king cometh 
sitting on an ass’s colt.'’ Dealing, as usual, in twos, 
Matthew gives quite a different account of this affair. 
He also gives quite a different quotation of the script¬ 
ure of which this affair is claimed to have been the 
fulfilment Instead of having Jesus himself thus find 
one ass, Matt, xxi, 1-7, has him send two of his disci¬ 
ples to steal, or at least to take without leave, two 
asses, and has him ride them both at once into Jerusa¬ 
lem. 

What a figure Jesus must have cut riding thus into 
Jerusalem upon those two asses, and followed by a 
mob of yelling vagrants! Just picture to yourself 
ex-President Grant riding thus into Washington, or 
Prince Albert riding thus into London! What could 
be more supremely ridiculous than such a jackassical 
performance, especially when it is claimed to have been 
performed in fulfilment of scripture? Do you really 
believe that the infinitely mighty power that rules the 
universe ever inspired men to write such silly stuff 
about itself, or that it ever, in the form of a man, per¬ 
formed such a feat of assmanship? Could not this 
pretended prophecy have been equally well fulfilled 
by any other man who might have seen fit to thus ride 
two asses at once into Jerusalem ? Infidel as I am, I 
would be sorry to tell so blasphemous a story concern¬ 
ing your God. 

The scripture to which Matthew and John both 
refer, and which they both misquote, is found in Zech. 
ix, 9, and reads as follows : “ Rejoice greatly, 0 daugh¬ 
ter of Zion, shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem: behold, 
tby king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having sal- 


274 DEITY analyzed. 

✓ 

vation : lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, 
the foal of an ass.” Who it was that came as a king to 
Jerusalem riding thus u upon an ass, and upon a colt 
the foal of an ass,” I do not pretend to know. I do 
pretend to know, however, that although Zecharias 
wrote in the present tense, he was describing events 
which, according to the accepted chronology of the 
Bible, occurred sixty-seven years before. Of necessity, 
then, the language is historical and not prophetic. In 
order to be prophetic, language must, of necessity, refer 
to the future. No one can possibly prophesy a past 
or a present event. To describe, as does Zecharias, 
a past or a present event is simply to write history. 
Thus falls another prop of priestcraft. 

I have now fully and fairly examined five of the 
most important of the so-called prophecies of Jesus, 
and found that not one of them refers to Jesus at all— 
that they all refer to matters which were either past 
or present at the time they were written. I also find 
that these so called prophecies are of such a nature 
that almost any one who might have seen fit to do so 
could have procured their apparent fulfilment. 
Whether by accident or design, Joseph very easily 
brought about the apparent fulfilment of three of 
these so-called prophecies. By dreaming, or, at least, 
by pretending to dream, that Mary was with child of 
a ghost and not of a man, he fully satisfied the condi¬ 
tions of the pretended prophecy that a virgin should 
conceive, etc. By taking Jesus down into Egypt, and 
then bringing him out again, he satisfied the conditions 
of the pretended prophecy in which God declares that 
he has called his son out of Egypt By taking Jesus 


THE MESSIAH OH SAVIOR 


275 


to live in Nazareth he satisfied the conditions of the 
pretended prophecy that some one should be called a 
Nazarene. Had any other person seen fit to dream, 
or to pretend to dream the same thing concerning some 
other young woman’s illegitimate child, and if this 
person had then taken the child after its birth down 
into Egypt and out again, and had then with the child 
settled down to live in Nazareth, would he not equally 
well have fulfilled all of these so-called prophecies? 
As to the pretended prophecy concerning the riding 
into Jerusalem “ upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal 
of an ass,” it could have been, and doubtless was, just 
as well fulfilled by thousands of other men. In those 
days it was a very common thing for men to ride thus 
into Jerusalem upon the backs of asses. As to the 
pretended prophecy that some one’s bones should not 
be broken, its conditions were fulty satisfied by every 
one of the millions of men whose bones were not 
broken. 

For want of time, I cannot notice any more of the 
so-called prophecies of Jesus. All the others, how¬ 
ever. are just as easily disposed of as are those which 
I have examined. None of them will bear the test of 
fair investigation. They are all priestly impositions 
meant to deceive those who either can not or dare not 
reason. 

I have now fully and fairly analyzed Deity in all its 
forms, and found it, in all of them, a remnant of pagan 
mythology, founded entirely upon ignorance and 
superstition- 




































«• 

' 


* 


























’ 











* 

































( MAY 16 1883 , 

\V v Mo. ./.C.4$ 
Vs ^^w a s h \\&^s 

PREFACE.' 


In the hope that some may be led by it to cast off 
the chains which priestcraft has fastened upon them, 
und to thus escape the unutterable agonies of religious 
despair, to which himself was long a victim, the au¬ 
thor has concluded to publish this little book, although 
it was not, at first, his intention to do so. 

He began writing it as a kind of refuge from the 
crushing sorrow brought upon him by the sudden 
death of two dearly beloved sons. Having become in¬ 
terested in the subject, however, he has spent upon it 
much time and labor. Without consulting the tastes 
or the opinions of others, he has written to suit him¬ 
self. Some, therefore, will doubtless condemn his 
style as too bold, and his satires as too severe. For 
these persons, however, he has not written at all. In 
his own judgment, his subject demands all the bold¬ 
ness and all the severity that he has used. Believing, 
as he does, that all books and all gods should stand 
upon their own merits, he no more hesitates to attack 
the errors of the Bible than he does to attack those of 
any other book, and he just as fearlessly and just as 
conscientiously subjects to merited censure and rid- 





IV 


PREFACE. 


icule the god of the Hebrews as he does the god of 
any other people. 

In the author’s opinion, this little book contains 
nothing improper, and is couched in about as gentle 
language as could be used to do the subject justice. 
Of course, the priests generally, and their blind follow¬ 
ers, will condemn the book, and consign its writer to 
the tender mercies of him in whose defense it is writ¬ 
ten, This will be all right. The author would rather 
look to the Devil for mercy than to the bigots of the 
human race. 

As to the literary merits of this little book, they are 
not, in the author’s own opinion, very high. Though 
written in verse, very few passages rise to the dignity 
of true poetry. The arguments, however, are believed 
to be, as a rule, unanswerable, and it is these that give 
to the book its principal value. 


The Author. 



BOOK NUMBER II AUTHOR 

















THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
























THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


CHAPTER I. 

A court was convened, as you doubtless all know, 

To try the old Devil, a short time ago— 

To try him for crimes that I tremble to name, 

But which, as a duty, I’m bound to proclaim. 

The priests were the plaintiffs and brought in the 
proofs 

That the Devil had horns and a pair of split hoofs; 
That he oft struck them dumb with unspeakable fear, 
By wagging a tail finished off like a spear. 

They swore that he’d grossly insulted their laws 
By using for fingers ten horrible claws ; 

That they also did firmly and truly believe 
He had helped to bamboozle old grandmother Eve. 
They also deposed that he kept up a hell, 

And, in more ways than one, had become a great 
swell; 

That he practiced the arts of a roaring rip-snorter; 
That his terrible tail should be half a foot a shorter; 
That, in fine, they believed that the only solution 
Of his case was conviction and prompt execution. 

Defendant, of course, to these charges demurred, 
And, as justice required, he was patiently heard. 




t> w 


8 - 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


is speech, quite a masterly effort, indeed, 
s it then was reported, you now may all read. 

S. S. S., Clerk of Court 

THE DEVILS ADDRESS. 

V. 

0 judges! men of learning all, 

On you for justice now I call; 

I ask no favors, be it known, 

I ask for justice—that alone. 

From every prejudice all free, 

You will, of course, be just to me; 

At any rate, I’m satisfied 
To be by such tribunal tried. 

I feel assured that my defense, 

When heard by men of common sense, 

Will clear my name of much that’s ill 
And show remains of goodness still. 

The charges, you are well aware, 

Devised have been with wondrous care, 

And yet I’ll prove them, every one, 

Malicious lies before I'm done. 

They swear that I seduced old Eve 
And made that famous dame conceive; 

They also swear they’ll make me rue it, 

But, please the Court, I did not do it 
I would have scorned to touch his madam, 

To cuckold thus old father Adam; 

Indeed, I never, during life, 

Have stooped to touch another’s wife. 

The Lord, however, well you know, 

Could not, with equal truth, say so; 


THE devil's defense: 


9 


Since he begat, you’re well aware, 

For Joseph’s wife a little heir, 

Then why should he make such a fuss 
And call me “old licentious cuss,” 

For this thing, e’en had I begun it, 

Since he himself has “ gone and done it?” 

My foes, to show their ready wit, 
Declare my feet are hoofs and split; 

And oft, to aid their tott’ring cause, 

They picture me with four great paws. 

My horrid charms to further swell, 

They give me horns and wings as well; 
And then, to give these pictures sale, 

They improvise for me a tail. 

At times, their minds new fancies take 
And I become a learned snake, 

Upon my belly doomed to crawl, 

Deprived of legs and wings and all. 

And, when their dupes have ceased to fear 
My devilship as pictured here, 

These holy men, in great distress 
For fear their profits may grow less, 
Contend that I, in form of air, 

Exist around them everywhere. 

They teach that I, by wicked arts, 

Get into men and turn their hearts 
From God and righteousness away, 

Then bear them off as my own prey. 

So great success they say I’ve had 
In making helpless mortals bad— 

In taking them to be my own, 

That God is left almost alone. 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


This last description fills the bill, 

For brainless men are frighted still, 
And made fit tools for priests to use, 

By just such baseless bugaboos. 

But, whether form of man, or snake, 
Or air. or dragon, I may take, 

These holy men all know full well 
That I must have an awful hell, 

Or some such place in which to dwell. 
This hell—these men know all about it, 
And suffer no one e’en to doubt it, 

And yet they always keep its lid 
From vulgar eyes completely hid. 

They fear that sinners, having found it, 
Would all escape by going round it, 
And such escape, you plainly see, 
Would ruin priests as well as me. 

These priests and I, I need not tell, 

A common int’rest have in hell; 

And though we seem to disagree, 
They’re all in partnership with me; 

At heart we’re all the best of friends, 
And have in view the same great ends. 
And since ’tis thus, of course I, too, 
Will keep hell hid from vulgar view. 
And now, 0 judges, I will tell 
How I became the king of hell, 

And how by wise administration, 

I’ve ruled therein my great dam-nation. 

There was a time, so priests do tell, 
When earth existed not, nor hell; 

When neither sun nor moon gave light, 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


11 


Nor star3 begemmed the dome of night 
Then nothing was but God alone, 
A^ithout a dwelling-place or throne; 
For, had he then a place to be, 

That place, of course, was old as he; 
And if he always had a throne, 

Its workmanship was not his own ; 

And if ’twas not, ’tis plain to see 
Its maker older was than he. 

Thus all alone, as you’ve been taught, 
God spent eternity in thought; 

But what he had to think about, 

I never could myself make out 
Aroused at last, so runs the story, 

He went to work for his own glory, 

And made unnumbered angels bright 
To guard the lovely lands of light, 
Which he had just created then, 

As homes for future gentlemen. 

*Twas then he manufactured me, 

A great archangel, as you see, 

And placed one-third of all his land, 
With all its hosts, at my command. 

At first we all got on quite well, 

And there was still no need of hell, 

Till trouble, raised by some vile “cuss,” 
To horrid war excited us. 

I marshaled then my whole great band, 
And strove to save my own bright land. 

For three dread days the battle roared, 
As countless hosts upon us poured; 

But, facing all, we bravely stood, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

As only heaven born heroes could. 
Archangel bands, with fearful force, 

Like planets hurled from out their course 
From either side together crashed, 

Like worlds on worlds to atoms dashed. 
At times, amidst more awful din 
Than here on earth hath ever been, 

We rushed forth all, with dreadful shout, 
And put our countless foes to rout; 

But, crushed at length by fearful odds, 
Upon us hurled by angry gods, 

We were at last compelled to yield, 

And ground our arms upon the field. 

A fate as dire then waited us 
As could await those conquered thus; 

Our foes at once, I scarce need tell, 

For us prepared an awful hell. 

They chose a spot, no matter where, 

And made great piles of brimstone there; 
Then, glad to glut their vengeful ire, 
They lighted these with quenchless fire. 
All this we saw, and awful dread 
Throughout my 103 ml legions spread, 
When first upon our vision broke 
Those horrid clouds of sulphur smoke. 
Upon the bravest faces there 
I read the signs of black despair. 

Yet no one plead for mercy then, 

As plead the cringing sons of men. 

We had, of course, not long to wait, 

Till all our foes, inspired by hate, 

Upon us rushed with horrid yell, 


13 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

And thrust us headlong into hell. 

This enterprise, I must confess. 

Appeared, just then, a grand success; 

And those who got it up, no doubt, 
Thought we could never more get out 
At last, however, all proved vain, 

Since none of us do now remain 
Against our will, but, free as air, 

"We play the devil everywhere. 

Our sudden fall, as well it might, 

Gave us a momentary fright; 

Since none of us as yet could tell 
Just what it was to be in hell. 

This terror past, to council grand 
I called my whole heroic band, 

And then and there, with wise intent, 

I organized my government 

When I had learned, beyond all doubt, 
That all of us could get right out, 

I had the devils each prepare 
Good fire-proof wings for service there. 

I had this done, as must be clear 
To every gentleman now here, 

Because the wings which once we bore, 
And which served us so well before, 

Too badly used in fire and fight, 

Were almost useless now for flight. 

When well equipped, upon the scout 
I daily sent ten legions out; 

And all that they could hear or see 
They telegraphed at once to me. 

When we from heaven were made to fall. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

We left our homes there vacant all; 
Hence God, devising some new plan 
To fill those places, made a man, 

A woman, too, as there was need, 

And placed them here on earth to breed. 
I heard of this within an hour, 

And had them soon in my own power; 
But I did not seduce old Eve, 

As priests would fain have you believe; 
This would have been a foolish act 
For which there was no need, in fact. 

The Lord himself—a sad mistake— 

Had made a wondrous walking snake, 
And vainly boasted that ’twas “good.” 
Before its traits were understood. 

This snake left me no part at all 
To act in Adam’s famous fall. 

When I arrived, there met my eye 
This mud-made man laid out to dry ; 
And while I gazed on him I thought 
He’ll soon be mine, just as he ought; 

For even then, I quickly learned, 

His face of choice was hellwards turned. 
Not far away I saw the snake, 

With knowing eyes all wide awake, 

And well I knew he’d spoil God’s plan 
For peopling heav’n from this mud man. 
Thus satisfied, I soon was gone, 

But looked, from far away, still on 
To see what course events would take, 
And what was meant by that old snake. 
The snake, it seems, was very wise, 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


15 


And wished to see that pair arise 
From out the depths of degradation 
In which they’d groveled since creation; 

In which he knew they’d grovel still, 

If left to follow out God’s will. 

He, therefore, formed at once a plan 
To elevate this inud-made man ; 

Yet thought it best to try the madam, 
Alone, before he tried old Adam. 

But what he did to mar God’s glory, 

And all the rest of this sad story, 

I must, at present, needs omit, 

Not having time to finish it. 

Suffice it, then, that Adam fell, 

And thus made men all heirs of hell; 

That, soon as God heard we’d got out, 

He thought our capture mixed with doubt; 
That, lest his hell might all be lost, 

Though fitted up with wondrous cost, 

He promptly changed his plans again, 

And swore he’d fill it full of men. 

But lest rebellious men might be, 

Like devils, fond of liberty, 

And lest they might, at last, get out, 

And, joining us, put him to rout, 

He left them nothing, when they fell, 

On which to stop at all in hell; 

In other words, to leave no doubt 
He knocked his hell’s whole bottom out 
He did not know that, like a tide, 

They’d all pour out on 'tother side ; 

Yet this occurred, when first: he tried it. 


16 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

y ' •' . - “ - t 

Though lying priests have oft denied it 
The Lord soon found himself unfit 
To have control of such a pit ; 

With grief intense, and deep despair, 

He saw loose devils everywhere,* 

And men, just damned, without disguise, 
Came popping up before his ej 7 es. 

He then declared, in great dismay, 

“ This cursed heil will never pay.” 

He therefore quickly sought my aid, 
And offered fair with me to trade; 
Declaring me well qualified 
To do what he had vainly tried. 

He said, if I would run this thing, 

He’d make of me si mighty king; 

Would give me all the human race, 

And forward them to my own place, 
Except a few whom he’d select, 

And whom he’d mark as his elect. 

He said he’d give me such a puff 
That I could rule with ease enough ; 

And, thinking his whole offer fair, 

I closed the contract then and there. 

And now you know how it befell 
That I became the king of hell. 

Established thus upon a throne 
Of red-hot brimstone, all my own, 

I turned my thoughts to regulate 
And make secure my new estate. 

All this I did with great success, 

As e’en my enemies confess; 

Indeed, no enterprise in hell, 




THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


17 


/ 


Since then, has failed to prosper welL 
More loyal subjects could not be 
Than all the devils are to me. 

And men—nine-tenths of all or more— 

Walk freely in at my front door. 

A few, ashamed of what they’ve been, 

Like curs, of course, come sneaking in; 

But these do not annoy me much, 

Since only slaves attend to such. 

These are the priests who do not dare 
To face their flocks assembled there, 

And who appear with poorest grace 
Of all mankind in such a place. 

These men, with virtue ably shammed, 

Oft stoutly swear that they’re not damned; 
And try to frame some pretext fair, 

Some good excuse for being there. 

At times they say a “ pastoral call ” 

Hath brought them there, “and that is alL” 
At other times some wondrous tale 
They tell, but all do sadly fail, 

Since all my subjects know full well 
That none but damned men come to hell 
These priests do also oft declare 
That they cannot well breathe our air 
Which is, of course, as you all know, 

With burning sulphur still aglow. 

While still on earth, then, ’twould be well 
For priests to fit themselves for hell, 

By burning sulphur in their rooms, 

And breathing oft its pungent fumes. 

At times, down there, these priests become, 


18 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


As once on earth, quite troublesome; 

And yet it oft amuses me 
To hear them when they disagree. 

That they’re in hell they oft forget, 

And play the role of preachers yet; 

Declare that those who are not crammed 
Chock full of faith will all be damned. 

They oft repeat their catechisms, 

Then come to blows about their isms. 

One cries, “Believe and be baptized 1” 
Another cries, “ Be circumcised ! ” 

Another cries, with frantic yell, 

44 Be born again or go to hell 1” 

Another cries that “ God will bless you, 

If you’ll but have our priests confess you 1 ’* 
And thus a thousand difFrent creeds, 

Each claimed to be just what man needs. 
Are fiercely urged, till hell is rife 
With holy theologic strife. 

Indeed, forgetting where they are, 

These holy men oft go too far: 

They make the toughest devils blush, 

And I am forced to make them hush. 

Save these disputes, throughout all hell 
The citizens are doing well; 

And this success must vindicate 
My mode of ruling my estate; 

Indeed, let priests say what they may, 

They must admit I’ve made hell pay. 

In fact, could 1 be only free 
From all the slanders heaped on me. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


19 


No happier monarch could be found 
In all the wide creation round. 


CHAPTER II. 

The Hebrew God, as well you know, 

Is said to be my greatest foe; 

And all my enemies declare 
That he doth not intend to spare, 

But doth intend to torture me 
In hottest flames eternally. 

These statements I will not deny, 

But, passing them unnoticed by, 

Will call at once the evidence 
To be reviewed in my defense. 

This evidence, they say, is found 
Within this book, so neatly bound— 

The Bible, which contains, we find, 

Some sixty books or more combined. 

These books, however, let me state, 

As evidence, have little weight, 

Since all are destitute of date, 

And since—a greater fault than this— 

Their authors’ names we also miss. 

We do not know what kind of men 
Composed these books, nor where, nor when ; 
Hence, whether false or whether true, 
Cannot, of course, be known to you. 

All copied oft, how ill, how well, 

There’s no one living now can tell; 



20 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


\ 


The versions all so disagree, 

That no man can be sure that he 
Knows what the reading ought to be. 

Some changes have been made by chance, 
But more, no doubt, through ignorance; 
While others plainly bear the sign 
Of forgery or deep design. 

Some ancient copies still we find, 

With notes and comments interlined; 

And notes and comments started thus, 

As Bible texts are preached to us; 

In fact, no one can now be sure 
That any text remaineth pure. 

Of Bible champions, one great class 
I gladly would in silence pass ; 

These, too intent on victory, 

As churchman all are apt to be, 

Have changed the text to make it read 
Just what they wished to save their creed. 
For instance, those who could not well 
Succeed without a flaming hell, 

With which to scare their flocks each day 
And make them thus more free to pay, 
Were bound to find, or else invent, 

This much desired establishment. 

They therefore searched the Bible through, 
As holy men are wont to do, 

But could not find a single word 
From which such hell could be inferred, 
Till they had gone entirely through 
The older part and reached the new. 

Their labors then were well rewarded, 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


21 


For there they found accounts recorded 
Of such a place as they desired, 

An endless hell already fired. 

To make the Testaments agree, 

They then went back quite carefully, 

And here and there so changed a word 
That hell from it might be inferred. 

This done, the simple grave became 
A world aglow with sulphur-flame; 

For Hebrew sheol —Greek hadace — 

Means but the grave, or some such place. 

Yet all can see that, when this word 
Is thus construed, ’tis oft absurd; 

Since thus they make old Jonah yell 
From out the belly of their hell. 

From this, some persons sadly wish 
To know if hell was then a fish ; 

And how, to glut God’s vengeful ire, 

This, hellish fish was set on fire. 

Your priests, perhaps, would answer thus: 
“That fish—a great unruly ‘cuss’— 

If not an endless flaming hell, 

Was certainly a monstrous swell; 

He was, the fact to briefly state, 

A hell-of-a-fish at any rate.” 

One other case I’d have you heed, 

In which the truth’s been bent to creed: 

The word baptidzo means immerse, 

Or dip, or plunge, in every verse 
In which ’tis found; yet, strange to say, 
They’ve thrown this meaning quite away, 

And made the word mean—what they need— 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

To sprinkle. Thus they save their creed. 

And thus I might, as well you know, 

A thousand more such cases show, 

In which some sect has found a need 
To make the Bible bend to creed. 

It hath been thus so oft amended, 

By men who have some creed defended. 
That scores of different doctrines may 
Be fully proved by it to-day; 

But now I will, with your consent, 
Advance another argument. 

A point in law there is, you see, 
Concerning which all* men agree, 

That evidence cannot be sound 
In which discrepancies abound; 

That contradictions, plain as day, 

Take all its weight as proof away. 

When sev’ral statements disagree 
On vital points, ’tis plain to see 
That some are false—that all may be. 
Hence men, like you, of common sense, 
Cannot receive, as evidence, 

The Bible, filled with contradictions 
That mark its tales as fancy fictions. 

For instance, God, concerning grace, 

Spake unto Moses face to face, 

As friend speaks unto friend; 

To gain the people’s doubting hearts, 

He also showed his hinder parts, 

And gained thereby his end. 

So Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, 

And sev’nty elders had a view 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


2$ 


Of this same God, and did not die, 

But ate and drank while he was niglt 
At stiil another time and place, 

Old Jacob saw God face to face, 

And yet he did not die; 

Isaiah, too, ’tis also known, 

Beheld the Lord upon a throne 
Exalted very high. 

Now what do all these statements mean, 

If God was never heard nor seen? 

And if he was both seen and heard, 

How, then, must we regard the word 
Of those who stoutly do aver 
That these things never did occur? 

John says no man at any time 
Hath seen the Lord your God sublime, 
And no man ever yet hath heard 
Him utter e’en one single word; 

And Paul doth write to Timothy, 

“Whom no man hath seen nor can see.” 

Two parties here, you plainly see, 

On vital points so disagree, 

That there is left no room to doubt 
That, ’twixt the two, a lie is out 
If, then, they lie concerning God, 

Whom they so love, ’twould be quite odd 
Should they not lie concerning me, 

Whom they do hate so fervently. 

Again, in Deuteronomy, 

We read that just and right is he; 

And James says that God cannot be 
With evil tempted; and that he 


24 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE, 


Doth not to sin tempt any man, 

But doeth all the good he can. 

Elsewhere we read that good and true 
Is God who can no evil do, 

And who, to sinners when they pray, 
Doth teach his own most righteous way. 

These writers have done all they could 
To make the Lord seem very good; 

But hear what he is made to say 
In famous old Isaiah’s day: 

All evil I myself create 
To punish those that Ido hate ; 

Things good and evil, great and small, 
The Lord I am, I do them all. 

And then, in good Ezekiel’s day, 

The Lord again was made to say, 

My evil statutes I did give, 

And judgments that they might not liva 
And here, again, we have, you see, 

Two parties who quite disagree; 

And hence it cannot be denied 
That one, at least, most grossly lied. 

11 The Lord is a man of war,” ’tis said, 

A fierce, “a consuming fire;” 

And millions of the ghastly dead 
Bespeak his most terrible ire. 

He doth not pity, he doth not spare, 

He cruelly doth destroy ; 

He careth not for the ttail or prayer, 

To him ’tis a source of joy. 

He ord’reth his band, with a bloody hand, 
To butcher both young and old— 


/ 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


25 


To render the land, like a waste of sand 
Where the billows once have rolled. 

They hasten to do as the Lord doth command— 

Like demons let loose, they destroy the whole land; 
Alas 1 for their victims ! wherever they turn, 
Destruction awaits while their villages burn. 

Great volumes of smoke, like a vast floating pall, 
Hang dark o’er the valleys, the mountains, and all; 
From the depths of their darkness, arise on the air 
Such terrible yells and such screams of despair, 

That all the damned spirits and demons of hell 
Could never this scene in its horrors excel. 

Of strong and brave men, but a few now remain, 
Their bodies lie scattered all over the plain ; 

Those few are surrounded ; like lions at bay, 

They rush on their murderers, they yell and they 
slay; . 

But, beaten by numbers, their eyes gleaming fire, 
They scream their defiance, they fall, they expire. 
Resistance now ceases, the ground is all red 
With blood from the veins of poor Midian's dead. 

Now bursts forth anew on the smoke-burdened air, 
More terrible wailings of utter despair; 

Old women whose locks are as white as the snow 
Are butchered, and left to the vulture and crow. 

The mothers all flee with their babes at their breast, 
Oh 1 could they save these, they could lose all the 
rest! 

But flight is in vain, by the Lord’s chosen men 
They are caught and conveyed to a vast slaughter 
pen; 

A signal is given, around them their rams 


26 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

A storm of blood mixed with their babies crushed 
brains. 

Oh 1 horrible ! horrible ! maddening sight I 

Haste ! haste 1 ye wild darkness, and hide it in night! 

The mothers still cling to the bodies yet hot, 

They gaze in the eyes, but are recognized not; 

Those blood covered bodies still fondly they press, 
The names they still call and they wildly caress; 
Their agonized bosoms with mother-love burn, 

But no mark of love comes to them in return. 

The lips that so lately were wreathed in a smile, 

All mangled and gory still quiver awhile; 

Death’s pallor creeps over each poor little face, 

The heart-throbbings cease, and the eyes glaze apace. 
Their lives have departed forever away, 

Those sweet little babies are now only clay. 

The mothers see this, and are now glad to die, 

No longer they struggle, no longer they cry; 

Their throats are now cut, and their blood, like a 
spout, 

On their babies’ dead faces comes gushing right out; 
Their bodies, unburied, encumber the sod, 

And this is all done by the orthodox God. 

Yet “God is love,” they say; alas! 

That love should come to such a pass l 
Yet God, they say, “is good to all,” 

He even notes the sparrows’ fall; 

His tender mercy never fails, 

His pity toward all prevails. 

He hath no pleasure in the death 
Of him who yieldeth up his breath, 

But rather would that all should be 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


27 


Alive and well eternally. 

Again God said, “Thou shait not kill,” 
But soon, it seems, he changed his will, 

And ordered all that took his part 
Forthwith from gate to gate to start, 

And slay each man his own poor brother, 

If none he had, to slay some other. 

He also ordered each to slay 
His friend and neighbor that same day; 
Then, quick as thought, with horrid yell, 
Upon the helpless camp they fell. 

And ere the close of that dark day 
Three thousand bleeding corpses lay 
Before God’s well delighted eyes, 

A ghastly human sacrifice. 

And these foul deeds were done, you know, 
That God a blessing might bestow 
Upon each man that slew his son, 

His brother, friend, or any one. 

And did this God, so good to men, 

Bless none but human butchers then? 

Can any man of sense who reads 

Find aught that’s good in such foul deeds? 

And can the scriptures all be true, 

That I have quoted here to you ? 

Again God said, “Thou shait not lie,” 
But did not give a reason why; 

Indeed, I’ve often thought that he 
No valid reason then could see; 

At any rate, he dealt quite well 
With men who did some whoppers telL 
Indeed, at times, he sought the aid 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

Of skilful men, whose only trade 
Was lying, base; to these, we find, 

That he was always wondrous kind. 

For instance, once he had a fuss 
With Israel’s king, a fighting “cuss,” 

And wished to bring that king to grief, 

But could not well, ’twas his belief, 

Succeed in this great enterprise 
Without some one to tell such lies 
As might seem truths in Ahab’s eyes. 

Could this be done, he had no doubt 
That Ahab could be thus drawn out 
From his stronghold, and then put under 
Or whipped, at any rate, like thunder. 

He therefore made a gen’ral call 
For all his liars, great and small, 

And when with them the case he’d weighed, 
He asked who could the king persuade. 

Full many offered then to go, 

But skill in lying did not show 
Sufficient, so the good Lord thought. 

To do this thing just as they ought 

At last one came and offered aid 
Who long had lied, as his sole trade, 

Who then, of course, none can deny. 

Was highly qualified to lie, 

And who was hence the very one 
To do what God then wanted done. 

The Lord was pleased, and told him so, 
And, ord’ring him at once to gp, 

Said such a liar could not fail, 

But would with certainty prevail 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


29 


This liar did his part so well 
That Ahab ventured out and fell; 

And now it must be plain to you 
That this beats all that I could do, 

And that there is no use in trying 
To beat this God in skilful lying. 

God also said, “Thou shalt not steal,” 
Yet no remorse himself did feel 
When he commanded Israel, 

While still in Egypt they did dwell, 

To borrow silver, gems, and gold, 

To borrow jewels, new and old, 

To borrow clothes of every kind, 

To leave no precious thing behind; 
When he commanded them to spoil 
The friendly owners of the soil; 

When he commanded every one 
Who had this monstrous spoiling done, 
To place these goods upon his back, 

Then run away and ne’er come back, 
You may be sure they liked this plan, 
For, as the God so is the man. 

They borrowed silver, borrowed gold, 
And did all else that they’d been told. 
Then, thus enriched, without delay, 

As God required, they ran away. 

And now, my friends, please do compare 
“Thou shalt not steal” with this affair. 

No greater thieves, I do aver. 

E’er lived than God’s own people were; 
And ’tis no wonder that to-day 
Most Christians dearly love to prey. 


30 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


The Lord hath also said that he 
Did not approve adultery, 

And yet his people, e’en the best, 

Did practice it with wondrous zest; 

And he did never make them rue it, 

But often kindly helped them do it 
When he sent out an armed band 
To spoil the Midianitish land, 

He strictly ordered them to slay 
Both old and young, without delay, 
Except the women who might be 
As yet in their virginity. 

All these, he told them, they might keep, 
As luscious mates with whom to sleep; 
’Twould be so nice, where’er they went, 
To have such mates in every tent; 
’Twould make the men, with one accord, 
All rush at once to serve the Lord— 

To help him slay the men of sin, 

And gather still more virgins in. 

To old Hosea we do find 
This God was also very kind ; 

And what he had Hosea do 
A model is for all of you. 

He thought that nothing else could bless 
As could a young adulteress; 

He therefore had Hosea take, 

At once, for Godly pleasure’s sake, 

A wanton woman, plump and fair, 

With soft blue eyes and golden hair. 

This done, the prophet soon began 
To taste of joys on God’s own plan ; 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


Indeed, he had a jolly time, 

For he was then just in his prime, 

And Gorner loved this pleasure too, 
Although to her ’twas nothing new. 

He did not marry her, of course, 

And lienee he needed no divorce 
When she became a common thing, 
And ceased so keen delights to bring; 
When she from over-work grew worn, 
And had for him three children borne, 
He simply had to cast her off, 

And make of her a cruel scoff. 

In this affair you plainly see 
How God did aid adultery; 

For when Hosea’s base desires 
Consumed him like internal fires, 

God had fair Gomer come to ease him, 
And do her very best to please him. 
And when this bonny, buxom jade 
Began, as well she might, to fade, 

He let this man, as you all see, 

Mistreat her very cruelly. 

But, missing sadly those delights 
That erst had solaced him of nights, 
This prophet grew dissatisfied, 

And hence to God for comfort cried. 
Then God, because he liked the man, 
Prescribed for him the same old plan— 
Prescribed another wanton dame 
Who could the prophet’s passions tame. 
The prophet went, as he was told, 

And took a harlot, not yet old, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


Of wondrous beauty—ready, too, 

For all the prophet wished to do. 

But she, it seems, knew very well 
The worth of what she had to sell, 

And would not give him any chance 
Until he did the price advance; 

She said he should not even touch 
The thing he wanted—no, not much— 
Until he handed her the tin, 

And all the barley was brought in. 

When paid, she gave, as then she ought, 
The use of that which he had bought, 

And quite enough it was, no doubt, 

In fact, ’tis thought she wore him out; 

At any rate he never more 

Asked God to furnish him a-. 

And now, if you are only wise, 

You’ll keep this man before your eyes 
In every similar enterprise. 

When you have learned just what’s to pay, 
You’ll find it far the better way 
To pass the coin, upon the nonce, 

And get the article at once. 

Old Abraham, poor man ! they say, 

Was made to act in this same way; 

But ’twas his loving wife who bid 
Him do the naughty things he did. 

He long had tried to make her breed, 

But somehow could not quite succeed ; 
Then, vexed because she would not own 
That all the fault was hers alone, 

He nightly grumbled more and more, 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


And harder tried than e’er before. 

His wife, of course, contended still, 

As barren women always will, 

That she was able well to bear, 

If he could but beget an heir. 

She also told him, furthermore, 

Before their troubles all were o’er, 

That she a goodly sum would bet 
That he a child could not beget, 

No matter what his chance might be, 

And this she told him frequently. 

This roused his wrath, and oft he swore 
That, though he could beget ten score, 

He’d try his skill on her no more; 

And thus, when they became enraged, 

A wordy war they fiercely waged. 

At last his wife, at heart quite kind, 

To cheer her husband's drooping mind, 

All woman like, felt much inclined 
For him some precious joy to find. 

So, when she long had thought and prayed, 
She counseled him to make a raid 
Upon her buxom servant-maid, 

And see if she could give him aid. 

Of course she did not much believe 
That he could make the maid conceive, 
But rightly guessed he’d like to try it, 

And hoped she’d gain a vict’rv by it; 

For, should he fail, ’twould prove that hj»* 
Himself was impotent, not she. 

She did not need to tell him twice, 

For he at once took her advice, 


34 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


And, simply saying ’twas “so nice,” 

He left her presence in a trice, 

And wended kitchen-wards his way, 

To hear what Hagar had to say. 

Of course she thought the plan was good, 
And did the best for him she could; 

Indeed, they’d scarcely well begun, 

Before the thing desired was done, 

And he, in prospect, had a son; 

And thus the Lord, you clearly see, 

Did bless their gross adultery. 

His wife, however, when she knew 
She’d been at fault the whole way through, 
Declared that though she’d made them do it, 
She’d none the less cause them to rue it; 
She said old Abe might well expect, 

From that time on to be hen-pecked, 

And that the maid would have to light 
Right out of doors, that very night; 

And did she not serve them both right? 

Old Jacob, too, made sim’lar raids 
Upon his luscious servant-maids, 

And caused the kitchens soon to swarm 
With little Jakes of every form. 

But Jake, however oft lie went, 

Had not the slightest ill intent; 

Indeed, a child-like innocent, 

He scarcely knew what ’twas they meant, 
When his two precious wives, you know, 
Forced him to get right up and go, 

And get, they said, for their own sakes, 
Two kitchen-fulls of little Jakes. 


35 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

And God was pleased with good old Jake, 
Because he thus played kitchen rake, 

And swore that he would surely make 
For him a great and honored name, 

And bless his children all the same, 
Although a large per cent of these 
Were fruits of gross adulteries. 

Of course the Lord thought Jake did right 
To make these raids, night after night; 
Hence ’twas that be did freely bless, 

And give to Jake so great success. 

But priests, it seems, of our own day, 
Although to this same God they pray, 
Would not advise us, so they say, 

To act in this same Godly way; 

Yet, oft themselves, oh ! sad mistakes! 

Do play the roles of kitchen rakes, 

And thus become good modern Jakes. 

Good Judah, too, old Jacob’s son, 
Rememb’ring what his sire had done, 

And wishing much to emulate 
That sire in all that made him great, 

To Tamar pledged a staff and ring 
For just as much as they would bring 
Of what he deemed the very thing 
To make him seem great, good, and wise, 

In everybody else’s eyes. 

He did not think his act a sin, 

When he to her was going in ; 

Far otherwise; he truly thought 
That he was doing what he ought, 

To serve the Lord as he’d been taught; 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

And he performed with such success 
That twins did this one effort bless. 

This woman, so the story runs, 

Had been the wife of two young sona 
Of this good man; and ’tis averred 
That she was waiting now a third, 

Who seemed, however, rather slow, 

As men at times will be, you know, 

And who did not to her then go, 

To quench her passions, all aglow; 

That when she’d waited many a day, 

To hear what this young man would say, 
And nothing heard, in any way, 

She swore that such-delay, 

In her opinion w'ould not pay. 

And that she’d rather die than be 
Compelled to bear such chastity— 

That she believed ’tw r ould be just right 
To take old Judah in at sight, 

Because he had not made his son 
Do what she so much wanted done. 

Be all this as it may, howe’er, 

A harlot she did soon appear, 

And stood 'where he would surely see her; 
But he knew not that it was she 
Whom he embraced so skilfully. 

So, afterwards, when he found out 
That Tamar was, beyond all doubt, 

With child, he swore in holy ire 
That she should be consumed with fira 

She said she did not care a-. 

That he need not such virtue sham; 





THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 




And she escaped that horrid fate 
By showing, ere it was too late, 

The staff and ring he’d given her, 

And asking whose he thought they were. 

The good man opened wide his eyes, 

For these struck him with much surprise; 
And then they plainly brought to view 
The fact that he was guilty, too; 

He therefore kindly did forgive, 

And let the harlot Tamar live. 

The righteous Lot, so ’tis related, 

On his own daughters perpetrated 
A foul and sick'ning deed of shame, 

By far too horrible to name; 

Of his own sons he made them mothers, 

And their own sons were their own brothers; 
And yet no words of condemnation 
Had God for this abomination; 

It must have met his approbation, 

Since he displayed no hesitation 
In richly blessing all the seed 
That came from this most monstrous deed. 
The only plea that Lot put up 
Was that he’d drained the juicy cup 
Each time, and that—the sly old skunk— 

He did these deeds while down dead drunk. 

And thus I might go on to show 
That God’s own people, high and low, 

Were guilty all, or nearly so, 

Of very gross adulteries, 

And other shameless deeds like these; 

And that thev vet were richly blessed. 


38 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


In all they did, all they possessed. 

Indeed, ’tis known to every one 
That God himself begat a son 
On Joseph’s wife, who, when ’twas done, 
When all her friends and neighbors knew it, 
Declared that she had let him do it, 

To learn just how he could go through it; 
To learn just how the precious seed, 

That was required to make her breed, 

Could be conveyed, as there was need, 

To one small spot within her frame, 

A spot which I need not now name. 

When he’d no organ, great or small, 

With which to reach that spot at all. 

Of course she learned just how ’twas done, 
But never would tell any one ; 

Hence this affair, to you and me, 

Must still remain a mystery. 

But how God compassed his design 
Is not your business, nor is’t mine; 

I merely wish to show that he 
Indulged in that great luxury 
Which he forbade—adultery. 

I next will your attention call 
To what is said by good Saint Paul, 

A noted man who far surpassed 
Most other men in learning vast. 

He says, And do ye then not know 
That saints shall judge the world below ? 

He likewise says, ’Tis also true 
That we shall judge what angels do; 

That, when there may be any strife 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


89 


Concerning things in earthly life, 

Those persons least of all esteemed 
Should be as proper judges deemed; 
And hence, if this man’s words be true, 
No harm from judging can accrue. 

But Christ, upon the other hand, 

Doth give this positive command : 
Judge not at all, lest ye may earn 
A sim’lar judgment in your turn; 

And now which one of these must we 
Believe, since they so disagree? 

Old Abra’m’s body, Moses said, 

Was just about the same as dead ; 

And hence when he begat a son, 

A special miracle was done. 

But then, as now, time sped on fast, 
And nearly fifty years had passed 
Since this event; and then, at last, 
When nearer dead than e’er before, 
This man begat six children more, 

And did this, too, without expense 
To any special providence. 

In James we read, Let no man say 
That God doth tempt him any way; 
For God doth not at any time 
Entice or tempt man into crime; 

But every man that’s made of dust 
Is drawn aside of his own lust 
Elsewhere, however, we do read 
That God did tempt in very deed, 

Old Abraham to slay his son. 

Some sav that ’twas his onlv one. 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

Though they would find it hard to tell 
Who had begotten Ishmael, 

And offer him a sacrifice— 

A horrid feast before God’s eyes. 

And Abraham was weak enough 
To be misled by this foul stuff; 

To roast his son, as dainty meat, 

And serve him up for God to eat. 

Bat when this lad of twenty-five 
Was firmly bound, yet still alive, 

An angel called, as there was need, 

And stopped this worse than hellish deed. 

It also can be clearly proved 
That God himself king David “ moved ” 
To perpetrate a monstrous sin. 

Then punished him for giving in. 

The sin was numb’ring Israel, 

For which some seventy-thousand fell 
By pestilence which God then sent 
On them as David’s punishment. 

And Christ instructed us to pray, 

Lead us not in temptation’s way; 

And this he would have hardly done, 

Had God ne’er tempted any one. 

Had Pharaoh prayed this little prayer, 
He might have missed the fatal snare 
Which God did cruelly prepare, 

And into which he quickly fell, 

As canting priests delight to tell. 

When Moses let King Pharaoh know 
That all the Hebrews wished to go, 

The Lord so hardened Pharaoh’s heart ” 


41 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

That he would not let them depart. 

God did this more than once or twice, 

Then sent strange frogs, and hail, and lice, 
And many other plagues to bring 
Great woe oiuthis God-hardened king. 

At times, when Pharaoh would relent, 

And freely give his full consent, 

The Lord, on mischief always bent, 

Again, with all-resistless power, 

Would change his mind within an hour. 

When Pharaoh’s heart was hardened thus 
The Lord would raise another fuss, 
Pronounce the king a stubborn “cuss,” 

And bring, by his almighty hand, 

Some other plague upon the land. 

He had the pow’r, as well he knew, 

To tempt a man and make him do 
As be desired in everything, 

And thus he tempted this poor king. 

To show some tricks the Lord desired— 
Some tricks he’d recently acquired, 

And which with fear the crowds inspired— 
And these he showed in splendid style, 

But punished Pharaoh all the while. 

In fact, he said for this alone, 

He’d placed this king upon a throne; 

Hence Pharaoh, you can plainly see, 

Could not have changed his destiny. 

No matter how much his own mind 
To justice might have been inclined, 

The Lord would have controlled his will, 
And made him keep the Hebrews still. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

Indeed, when Pharaoh let them go, 

The Lord had one more trick to show, 
And that he might exhibit this. 

Which he was very loth to miss, 

He caused the king to take their track, 
And try, by force, to bring them back. 

Poor Pharaoh did not understand 
The cruel trick that God had planned, 
And hence he fell; as we may say, 

To God’s foul treachery a prey. 

He rushed, at once, with all his host, 
Until he came upon the coast 
Whence he beheld the Hebrew band 
Pass through the sea upon dry land. 

The waters rose with awful tide, 

And stood like walls on either side ; 

And God so hardened Pharaoh’s heart 
That he was forced at once to start. 

And try to march his army through, 

As he had seen old Moses do. 

He rushed right in, as God had willed, 
And when the vast abyss was filled, 

The wat’ry walls together rolled, 

And rushed upon them uncontrolled. 
They then perceived, when ’twas too late, 
That God had lured them thus to fate, 
Not one survived to reach the shore, 

But all sank down to rise no more. 

And now, I ask, would this have been 
Had God not tempted them to sin ? 

Again, we learn that David smote 
.A certain heathen king of note, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


43 


And seven thousand horsemen took— 

At any rate, so says one book. 

Another book we read, and then 
Find only seven hundred inen. 

And now I’d like, and so would you, 

To know if both accounts are true. 

And then I would be glad to learn 
How many Joab did return, 

When he had numbered all the men 
That could have served as soldiers then, 

In all the tribes, in all the land, 

O’er which the king gave him command. 
Two Bible books so disagree 
In giving this one history 
That even priests do not deny 
That one of these must be a lie. 

Besides all this, one tale doth prove 
That God himself the king did move 
To do the deed, so wicked then, 

Of numb’ring all his valiant men. 

The other tale—you’ve doubtless read it— 
Of this affair, gives me the credit; 

And now, can any one of you 
Regard the stories both as true? 

And did the king commit a sin 
In having Joab thus bring in, 

From ev’ry tribe, the numbers all 
Of valiant men both great and small ? 

One passage says that, all his life, 

Save when he gulled Uriah’s wife, 

He served the Lord both night and day, 
And did not sin in anv wav. 


44 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


But here, upon the other hand, 

Himself gives us to understand 
That, when he strictly gave command 
To number all his valiant band, 

Though “ moved ” by God, who took him in, 
He did a dark and deadly sin; 

And God, it seems, took this same view, 

And hence both tales cannot be true. 

For this offense, one book, we find, 

Has God to mercy much inclined, 

And has him say that three long years 
Of utter want, with all its fears, 

Would be enough to make all right 
In his own much offended sight. 

Another book has him declare 
That he would not in mercy spare 
The people, whose despotic king 
Had done this most obnoxious thing; 

That seven years of famine dire, 

Which should consume their land like fire, 
Would scarce assuage his hell-hot ire. 

But when the king had well repented, 

This angry God, it seems, relented, 

And, very graciously, consented 
Some seventy thousand men to slay, 

Who had not sinned in any way, 

And let this trifling sacrifice 
Place David right before his eyes. 

Again, upon a certain day, 

As two evangelists do say, 

One man came forth from out the tomb 
In which, for want of other room t 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


46 


He dwelt, and candidly confessed 
That he by devils was possessed; 

A legion, full, so be affirmed, 

E'en then within his body squirmed. 

This man to Jesus loudly called, 

As though his soul was much appalled, 

And begged that he would not molest, 

But let these devils have a rest. 

He’d heard that Jesus went about 
And cast from men all devils out; 

He therefore begged, or rather they, 

That he would grant them leave to stay 
In this delightful human hell, 

In which they’d long been wont to dwell, 
And which, they said, ’twould greatly grieve, 
And almost break their hearts to leave. 

They further begged that should he not 
Let them remain in that loved spot, 

He’d, grant them all by grace divine, 

A home inside a neighb’ring swine. 

And Jesus, ever kind, they say, 

To devils e’en, when they do pray, 

Did grant at once this fair request, 

And give a swine to be possessed. 

The devils then, all in a trice, 

Assured of quarters warm and nice, 

Like warriors trained, fell into line, 

And soon drew up inside the swine. 

The deed that Jesus did that day, 

In giving that same swine away, 

Was wondrous kind, all Christians swear, 

And calls for praises everywhere ; 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


Bat then, the swine, ’tis now well known, 
That he then gave, was not his own; 

And any one can gen’rous be 
With other people’s property; 

With his own swine, ’tis clear to us, 

He never would have acted thus. 

This wondrous tale some things doth lack, 
Which, far too long, have been kept back; 
We ought to know by just what route 
Those devils marched from that man out 
We’d also like to know full well 
How devils could in porkers dwell; 

Why they such quarters should desire, 

How large a space they would require, 

What they would do, when cold, for fire, 

And whether they the tail or snout 
Would use when passing in and out 
And now I would suggest to those 
Who claim to be my priestly foes, 

That they should spend by far more time 
Upon this subject so sublime. 

Another author, we do learn, 

Gives this same tale another turn, 

By saying that ’twas not one man, 

But two men that to Jesus ran. 

On still another point, we see, 

These same two authors disagree; 

One says twas ’mong the Gergesenes, 

The other, ’mong the Gadarenes. 

Again, in Matthew, you will find 
That Christ healed two men who were blind; 
A\ bile Luke declares ’twas only one 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


47 


To whom this healing act was done. 

One says it cannot be denied 
That Judas hanged himself and died. 
Another doth as plainly say 
That Judas died some other way; 

That ’twas a fall, beyond all doubt, 

That caused this man to peg then out; 
That he of God was so accursed 
That when he fell his body burst 
If bursting open, made him die, 

The hanging tale must be a lie; 

And yet some say both tales are true, 
That if w r e take the foll’wing view, 

The stories, we will clearly see. 

On every point do well agree; 

That Judas, yielding up all hope, 

And wishing out of life to slope, 

Around his neck affixed a rope; 

Then climbing high to find a limb, 

Upon a tree that suited him, 

And having found such limb at last, 
lie made his rope to it quite fast, 

Then jumped right off, but quickly found 
Ilis rope had failed—that, with a bound 
He’d burst himself upon the ground. 

This story may do very well 

For those who care not what they tell; 

But I, who then resided there, 

And oft of Judas had the care, 

Ne’er heard of this most sad affair. 

One author says ’twas Judas bought 
A field with what his treason brought; 


48 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


Another says ’twas no such thing— 

That Judas did the money bring, 

And give it back as worthless pelf, 

Then went right out and hanged himself; 
That ’twas the priests that bought the field, 
With what his crime and theirs did yield; 
And that poor Judas had no hand 
At all in purchasing that land. 

Mark says the Lord was crucified 
At three o’clock, unqualified ; 

But John this time doth quite unfix, 

When he declares ’twas after six. 

We also read that Jesus died 
With one vile thief on either side; 

And Mark and Matthew both declare 
That these two thieves, while hanging there. 
Both railed at God’s beloved son, 

While Luke declares ’twas only one 
That did the railing—that the other, 

For railing thus, reproved his brother. 

John hath the fact most plainly shown 
That Mary Magdalene alone 
To Christ’s low tomb, came ere ’twas day, 
And found the stone was rolled away, 

With which they’d closed the entrance wide, 
To keep the body safe inside. 

Saint Matthew says two Marys came, 

And gives the time about the same 
As John doth give it; while Saint Mark 
Says no one came while thus ’twas dark; 
That neither one nor two, but three 
Good women came that tomb to see; 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

And that the time when this was done 
Was just the rising of the sun. 

Saint Luke declares that five or more 
Good women-called at that same door, 
And that they came, as there was need, 
While yet ’twas early quite indeed. 

And thus these men, you plainly see, 

Do very widely disagree 
On these two points of history. 

If they were true, it seems to us 
These stories could not differ.thus, 

Nor could they differ, were they true, 

On other points as now they do, 

Saint Luke declares—and is he right? 
That when his five dames hove in sight, 
They saw two men, as clear as light, 

Both standing up, in garments bright 
Saint John declares they were not men, 
But angels who were seen thus then, 

By his one dame, and that he’d swear 
They both were sitting down, then, there. 
Saint Matthew says he's very sure 
That nothing ever could be truer 
Than is the yarn which he hath spun 
Of this affair; that only one— 

An angel bright as is the sun— 

Was seen by his two women there, 

And that to this, he’d freely swear. 

And that one angel, he hath shown, 

Was sitting down upon a stone, 

Outside the tomb; but Mark doth swear 
There was no angel sitting there; 


60 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


That ’twas a man, in garments white, 

Of whom his three dames had a sight; 
And that this man sat in the gloom 
Inside the Savior’s silent tomb. 

And thus, again, we clearly see, 

These writers all do disagree. 

And when the Lord from death did rise 
To seek his home beyond the skies, 

He-first, of all on earth, was seen 
Alone by Mary Magdalene; 

At any rate, John says ’twas so, 

And he, of course, had means to know. 
This story, strange as it may be, 

Might seem authentic history 
Did not two other saints aver 
That this event did not occur. 

Saint Matthew says that there were two, 
Both Marys, who first had a view 
Of Jesus, when he left the gloom 
In which he’d lain within the tomb. 

While Luke declare the facts were thus: 
Two men walked out to Eminaus, 

And Jesus first appeared to them 
Some miles from great Jerusalem. 

Again, it doth not seem quite clear 
Just where the Lord did first appear 
To his disciples ever dear. 

Saint Matthew says ’tis surely true 
That he did make this grand ddbut, 

Upon a mount in Galilee, 

A mount which pilgrims still may see. 
But John proceeds at once to swear 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


61 


That this occurred some otherwhere; 
That he did first appear to them 
Inside the great Jerusalem. 

Saint Matthew swears they last did see 
Their risen Lord in Galilee, 

Upon a mount; while John doth swear 
That no such meeting happened there; 
That it took place upon the shore 
Where Peter fished, with many more. 
Saint Luke doth swear they last did see 
Their risen Lord at Bethany ; 

While still another author yet 
Doth swear that he would freely bet 
That this occurred on Olivet. 

And thus they widely disagree 
On almost every point, you see, 

Of what they claim as history. 

And thus I might go on to state. 

Of similar cases, small and great, 

A thousand more if there was need, 

But these are quite enough, indeed, 

To show that fearful contradictions 
Abound among these Bible fictions; 

To show that they, with men of sense, 
Are worthless quite as evidence. 


CHAPTER III. 

Once more we re met, and, face to face, 
As it is meet in such a case. 

Let my accusers, here to-day, 

Note well what I proceed to say; 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


While 1 compare the evidence 
With reason, science, common sense. 

J Tis said that all things had their birth 
In great Jehovah’s mighty brain ; v 
The sun, the moon, the solid earth, 

And every thing that they contain; 

The twinkling stars whose silver light 
Gleams forth from regions far aw r ay, 
Beyond the blue expanse of night, 
Beyond the bounds of solar day. 

And farther still, far, far away, 

Beyond man’s best unaided sight, 

Ten million suns, in glory play, 

To systems vast dispensing light. 

And still, beyond, where thought alone 
Can pierce immensity unknown, 

We may be sure that billions more 
Light up each far, far distant shore, 

While further on, could we but go, 

A billion billions still would glow, 

And still no nearer would we be 
To that imaginary place 
Which God himself can never see, 

The utmost verge of endless space. 

And could we still, with speed of light, 
Yet farther onward take our flight, 
Straight through the star-bespangled sxy, 
And thus ten million ages fly, 

We could not still a point attain 
Where space beyond would not remain. 
No matter, then, how far we'd gone, 

This same expanse would stretch right on 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


53 


And hence—stupendous thought—we see 
No end of space could ever be. 

Throughout this limitless expanse 
Great suns their beams of glory glance 
Oil systems vast of lesser spheres, 
Revolving round them endless years. 
These lesser spheres, to cheer their nights, 
In their turn have great satellites, 

And each is fitted thus so well 
For having creatures there to dwell, 

That ’tis but reasonable to guess 
They’re all abodes of happiness. 

Their winters, summers, days, and nights, 
Their changing months, their varied years 
Are well designed to bring delights 
To all who dwell within their spheres. 

No end of space can we conceive, 

No end of systems such as these; 

Yet priests would have us all believe 
They’ve been but sixty centuries. 

Jehovah made them all one day, 

And had some time to spare, they say; 
And yet to make this little earth, 

And give its living creatures birth, 
Required five days, and, sad to tell, 

Some parts of it were not made welL 

This earth of ours is ver}' small, 
Compared to other worlds so grand, 

And when alone compared to all, 

’Tis like the merest grain of sand 
Upon the mighty ocean’s strand. 

Then why was God so long at work 


54 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


On it, and why so much parade, 

When all the rest, at one great jerk 
Of his creative powers were made? 

Could he not just as well have willed 
The earth complete, at one great dash, 

And saved the time it took to build 
What might have come like lightning flash? 
It may have been a Godlike whim, 

Quite satisfactory to him, 

But I am very free to say 
He trifled too much time away. 

I do not like the idleness 
In which his early life was past, 

Ere he began his works at last. 

It matters not how long ago 
His work began, we all do know 
The time since then, however long, 

To finite periods doth belong; 

And this doth leave, you plainly see, 

Beyond that time, eternity. 

Ten billion times ten billion years, 
Unmarked, of course, by rolling spheres, 

Oft passed, but rendered none the less 
The term of God's Ions' idleness. 

In fact, of pure necessity, 

There never was, nor could there be 
An end to such eternity. 

It must be clear to every one 

That what doth end must have begun, 

And hence if God, as priests do guess, 

Lived out a term of idleness, 

That very term, you plainly see, 




THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


Must have itself begun to be. 

God had to be—what plainer fact?— 
Before he could perform an act; 

And since no act he could have done, 

Till all his previous time had run, 

It must be true, as priests do say, 

That such a term did pass away. 

Conceding this to be all true, 

And nothing else can we now do, 

The following facts come into view: 

That God’s first period, having run, 

And had an end, was needs begun; 

And that God’s life—deny who can— 
Beginning had, like that of man. 

Ere his first work, whate’er that was, 
Nought could have been but God the cause 
And he, all men of sense confess, 

For want of space, was motionless. 

Indeed, if he was anywhere, 

We must admit that space was there; 

For out of space, you plainly see, 

’Tis quite impossible to be. 

’Tis plain enough, in any case, 

That God made neither time nor space; 

For both of these, you plainly see. 

He had to have ere he could be; 

And since these things were never made, 
But always were, without his aid, 

No valid reason can I see 
Why matter may not also be, 

Like them, from all eternity. 

And if these things were never made, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 



They had, of course, no maker’s aid ; 

And, though the statement may seem odd, 

There could have been no need of God. 

These three vast elements sublime, 

Of all that is—space, matter, time— 

With all their innate mighty powers, 

Can fashion dew-drops, worlds, and flowers; 
Form living beings, everywhere, 

That walk the earth and cleave the air; 

In fact, can do, as may be shown, 

All that priests claim God does alone. 

Duration, matter, space, you see, 

\ 

Without a God, could always be, 

But take these things all quite away, 

And where would be your God, I pray? 

That he may be, he must have aid 
From things which priests declare he made ; 
And this is too absurd a view 
For ineD of sense to hold as true. 

If matter, then, did ne’er begin, 

But, in some form, hath always been, 

It had, of course, its properties, 

And gravity was one of these. 

And gravity, as well you know, 

Would motion cause both fast and slow; 

And motion would cause heat and light, 

And, when conditions all were right, 

With these, would cause all forms of life 
With which the universe is rife. 

The force that forms and moves each sphere 
In matter’s self, doth all inhere; 

And 'tis a form of this same force 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


That gives the rivers each its course; 

That makes the rain-drops fall in show’rs, 
That shapes the leaves and paints the flow’rs, 
That forms the birds that sweetly sing, 

And men, and every other thing. 

The universe doth need no one, 

Outside itself, to make it run; 

And ’tis a fact, quite clear indeed, 

That nothing is without a need; 

Without a cause that makes it be 
Just as it is, infallibly. 

For keeping gods, there’s no excuse, 

Since they’re of not the slightest use; 

To keep them up at great expense 
Displays great want of common sense. 

Some men there are, of course, you know, 
Whose common sense is very low; 

Who do appear, at times, indeed, 

Some kind of God to sorely need; 

And who, of course, suppose they must 
Keep up a God in whom to trust. 

What these men can not understand, 

They claim was made bv their God’s hand; 
They say, moreover, that ’tis fear 
Of God that makes them honest here, 

That were it not for their belief 
In God. thev’d be, each one a thief. 

They hold that all things did begin, 

And that to doubt this is a sin ; 

And yet I’ve never known a man 
To tell how his own God began. 

They claim that they, in all things, find 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


58 

Sure marks to prove those things designed ; 
And hold, of course, that God designed them 
And made them just as we now find them, 
They cannot see the real cause 
Of all there is in nature’s laws. 

They hold that man’s vast mind and will 
Proclaim their own God’s wondrous skill; 
Yet, strange to say, they fail to find, 

In God himself, this very kind 
Of proof, that he, too, was designed; 

That his still greater mind and will 
Proclaim a greater Maker’s skill. 

But these things I must now dismiss, 

And turn to first of Genesis. 

And see how much of benefit 
My enemies can find in it. 

“In the beginning”—this we read, 

And this discuss, ere we proceed. 

I would be very glad to know 
How long “ the beginning” was ago; 

But Bible versions two times nine, 

And scores of hist’ries all divine, 

Among themselves so disagree, 

That all is left in doubt with me. 

One says four thousand years and four, 
Another says two thousand more, 

Elapsed from time the world had birth, 

Until the Savior left the earth ; 

While others claim, with earnestness, 

The time was many ages less. 

What shall we do, then, whither look, 

Since Bibles fail to give us light? 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


69 


Doth there remain some other book 
To guide our wand’ring steps aright? 
Yes, nature is a book, indeed, 

That cannot lie, and cannot err; 

And we the truth in that may read, 

May talk to nature, as it were, 

And wisdom learn direct from her. 

“In the beginning”—of what, I pray? 
What was begun on that first day? 
Duration, space, were they begun? 

Or had they then long since been done? 
If we adopt the latter view, 

As Clarke and many others do, 

The word “beginning,” used as here, 
Would inappropriate appear; 

For if two things, most vast of all, 
Existing were, long, long before 
The time when God was pleased to call, 
From out of nothing, something more, 
This latter period could not be 
The “beginning,” you must plainly see. 
And should we take the former view, 

As many other writers do, 

Then we would have, it seems to me, 

No place at all for God to be, 

Nor could he have one moment been 
Before duration entered in. 

The earth was made without a form, 
’Tissaid, and, round it, darkness slept; 
But. o’er its waters, like a storm, 
Jehovah’s moving spirit swept. 

And when he wished to break the night, 


-60 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


And chase the darkness dense away, 

He merely said, “Let there be light,” 

And forth there flashed the brilliant day. 
And there were morning, ev’ning, noon, 
While there was neither sun nor moon; 
While not the faintest silver ray 
Forth gleamed from stars far, far away. 
And here, perhaps, ’twould be but right 
To ask whence came that first-made light 
So far as I can now divine, 

There then was nothing that did shine. 
What was it waked the early morn, 

Before the brilliant sun was born? 

And what, by whose slow-fading light, 
The day evanished into night. 

Perhaps the priests, who know so well 
Just what it was, will kindly tell. 

We’ve seen how God created light, 

And darkness, too, by his own might 
They cannot occupy one spot, 

For where one is, the other’s not, 

In fact, it hath been said aright, 

That darkness is the want of light. 

Take light away, and darkness reigns; 
Take both awaj r , and what remains? 

With both removed, if this could be, 
There would remain, as you can see, 

Just what your priests declare there was, 
Just what they call the Great First Cause. 
But since both could not absent be 
For e'en one moment, you can see 
That one, at least, is uncreated, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


61 


No matter what your priests have stated; 

And that there truly never was 

Such thing as that same Great First Cause. 

And God, ’tis said, “divided” light 
From darkness, which he then called night; 
And all our Bible versions sav 

J 

Of light he constituted day. 

Yet I cannot, though oft I’ve tried, 

See how he could these things divide, 

Since light doth not one moment stay, 

But vanisbeth at once away ; 

And darkness, equal in the race, 

Doth take at once its vacant place. 

If that first light did want a source, 

It must, you see, have been, of course, 

A substance—just as fully so 
As is aught else of which we know. 

And yet ’tis now well known to us 
That light could never have been thus. 

To constitute three sunless days, 

There must have been some source of light 
That furnished unremitting rays, 

Withheld, of course, to form the night. 

If, then, there was some brilliant thing, 
From which that primal light did spring, 

I’d like to know what hid its light 
When day evanished into night 
Did God then have some cavern wide 
In which that shining light to hide? 

Or did he pass it round the earth, 

To day and night thus giving birth? 

Or did he, think you, then see fit 


62 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


To have the earth turn round to it? 

Let’s now consider what was done 
By that bright thing that served as sun, 
For more than three important days, 
Before the sun was set ablaze. 

We know that nature’s changeless laws 
Require that day must have a cause; 

A cause that needs must be a sun, 

Or some good substitute for one. 

No matter what your priests may say, 
No other cause e’er made a dav ; 

And hence, if three whole days did run 
Ere God bethought to make the sun, 

I think no one will dare dispute 
That he then used a substitute. 

Just what that was, I do not say, 

But ’twas sufficient cause of day ; 

And ’tis a fact, to all quite clear, 

That, had it been to earth placed near, 
It would have roasted all the land 
Right under where ’twas made to stand, 
While yet to regions far away 
Its light could not have furnished day, 
It must have occupied some place, 

As does our sun, afar in space; 

And then, to make a perfect day 
When placed so very far away, 

It must have been a sun in size, 

And must have seemed to set and rise. 

To hold the earth herself in place, 
Revolving round and round in space, 
That thing was? bound, no matter how. 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


63 


To be just where our sun is now; 

To be the very same as he 
In substance, size, and density. 

Since it then did just what is done 
To-day by our own brilliant sun, 

It must have been, in every way, 

Just what and where he is to-day ; 

In short, it was, beyond dispute, 

The sun, and not a substitute. 

Thus nature’s laws declare the earth 
Did not before the sun have birth; 

And few wise men will now deny 
That Moses told a monstrous lie 
When he declared the earth was done 
Three days and more before the sun. 

The Lord made “ heaven,’’ Bibles say, 
But what doth “ heaven ” mean, I pray. 
It cannot mean the sun or moon, 

Since these were not turned out so soon; 
It cannot mean the stars which light, 

In splendor grand the dome of night, 
Since these were then, as may be shown, 
Unmade, and hence, of course, unknown. 
Whatever be the word’s intent, 

’Tis just the same as firmament; 

And since the sun and stars are here 
u Set in the firmament,’’ ’tis clear 
It cannot mean the atmosphere, 

As certain priests that I have seen 
Have vainly tried to make it mean. 

Some think it means the boundless space 
In which the stars do have their place, 


64 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


But soon I’ll bring some facts to view 
That prove this doctrine quite untrue. 
Indeed, the word, as once received, 

Meant but the thing bulged up, or heaved— 
The solid sky, which men believed 
To be thus heaved above the ground 
On which it rested all around— 

The solid sky, which priests asserted 
Stood like a vast blue bowl inverted, 

O’er all the earth, but which we know 
Did never stand inverted so. 

A few brief words I now will say 
Of what was done the second day, 

But first I’d know with what intent 
God used the phrase “ the firmament.” 

As here employed, it might appear 
To mean the denser atmosphere 
Which wraps the earth all round most near, 
And which alone, on either side, 

Hath “waters,” which it doth “divide;” 
Above this float the clouds, you know, 
While oceans vast spread out below. 

It seemeth, hence, to some but fair 
That “firmament” should mean the air 
That intervenes between the earth 
And where the rain-drops have their birth. 
But, ere we read the chapter through, 

We find this doctrine will not do; 

Since sun, and moon, and stars were all 
(Lest they upon the earth ahould fall) 

Like brilliant gems, with wise intent, 

“Set in ” this self same “ firmament” 


THE DEVJL's DEFENSE. 


65 


The whole account doth seem to be 
A mass of gross absurdity ; 

For if the “firmament” doth mean 
The denser air, ’tis plainly seen 
That sun and stars must be quite near 
The earth, in this same atmosphere. 

And if we do this view reject. 

As too absurd and incorrect, 

We must insist, as some have done, 

That waters are above the sun; 

Above the verv farthest star— 

Above all other things that are. 

If this strange view doth also fail, 

Then let your common sense prevail, 

And count as false this Bible tale. 

Indeed, as I could clearly show, 

The word in question, long ago, 

Like heaven, meant the thing heaved up— 
Inverted bowl or monstrous cup— 

Which God, ’twas thought, at nature’s birth, 
Had placed upon and o’er the earth; 

A basis firm—the solid sky, 

In which, to man’s unaided eye, 

The sun and stars seem, even yet, 

Like brilliant gems, to be all “ set 
A thing which never could have been, N 
And which these gems were never “in.” 

Of what was done on day the third, 

I do not need to say one word; 

And yet a short description may 
Be heard with interest to-day. 

The first thing, then, we notice here, 


66 the devil’s defense. 

Is that God made dry land appear ; 

But bow lie brought this change about, 

I never yet have quite made out. 

Some portions must have been depressed, 
On which the waters were to rest, 

And other portions, ’tis believed, 

Must, somehow, then have been upheaved. 

f • >■ 

Most learned men hold that the earth 
A fluid was, at time of birth ; 

And this, as all my hearers know, 

Its present form doth tend to show; 

But was it water? we inquire, 

That made it so, or was it fire? 

The learned Clarke holds that the earth 
Was but a ball of mud at birth ; 

That dirt and water all were mixed 
Until the lands and seas were fixed. 

He holds that whirling round about 
Hath bulged her central portion out; 

And this, indeed, doth well explain 
The form that she doth still retain. 

That she was fluid, none can doubt, 

Nor that ’twas whirling round about 
That forced her central portions out; 

And yet, while this must all be true, 

The water doctrine will not do. 

The oceans all, and gulfs, and seas, 

And e’en a hundred times all these, 

Would not suffice to wet it all, 

And make of it a fluid ball. 

Besides all this, as now well known, 

The earth is mostlv formed of stone. 

ar > 


TELE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


67 

Which never could by water be 
Reduced to Clarke’s fluidity. 

And had the earth, when first created, 

Been thus by water permeated, 

It would have taken ages vast, 

To dry her fully out at last, 

And yet our Clarke would have this done 
In one half day without a sun. 

And then this theory doth not show 
How ocean beds were sunk so low, 

Nor how the mountain tops so high 
Were made to pierce the deep blue sky. 

Nor can I see how floods so vast, 

In one brief morning could have passed 
And left the lands, which once they hid, 

So dry, as Moses says they did, 

That God, on them, that very day, 

Raised full ripe crops of grain and hay. 

Those floods, to reach the ocean’s shore, 

Must then have rushed, with awful roar, 

Five hundred miles an hour or more; 

And, rushing thus, in madd’ning race, 

They must have swept from off their base 
Great mountain chains that blocked their course, 
But could not stem their fury’s force. 

To me it seems this would have been 
The fix that things would have been in; 

And hence the tale, I think at best, 

Is merely what some man hath guessed; 

I think, of course, that Clarke doth fail 
To save this Bible fairy-tale. 

We know that nature’s changeless laws 


68 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


Are all-sufficient forming cause, 

Since matter can in no form be 
Unacted on by gravity ; 

And gravity, you doubtless know, 

Gives just such forms as worlds do show. 
This statement will be found quite true 
When you inspect a drop of dew 
And hence we find the cause is one 
That forms a dew drop, earth, and sun. 
And yet the earth, it seemeth clear, 

Could never have become a sphere— 

The form that we now find her in— 

Had she not once a fluid been. 

And since ’tis now quite clear to us 
That ’twas not water made her thus, 
There’s nothing else but heat, we know, 
That ever could have made her so. 

The crust of earth doth everywhere 
A former fierv state declare, 

And, digging downward, even yet, 
Increasing heat is always met. 

And each volcano is a vent 

For liquid fires, which, too much pent, 

Would burst, at last, the solid crust, 

And shatter continents to dust 
Besides all this, it may be said 
That earthquakes even yet oft spread 
Through regions vast intentest dread, 
When gases, gath’ring far below 
Where fires intense forever glow, 

Become compressed to such extent 

That thev must find some kind of vent 

* 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


69 


At times, the crust is broken through, 
And liquid fires pour into view. 

At times, vast mountain chains are reared 
Where once old ocean’s waves appeared; 
While other mountains, vast as these, 

Sink far beneath the surging seas; 

And this, you see, doth well account 
For deepest sea and highest mount. 

Of course, if this grand view be right, 
The earth was once a globe of light, 

Just like the sun, so wondrous bright; 
And countless ages must have passed 
Ere it was cooled enough at last 
To give upon its crusted face 
For living things a dwelling-place. 

And here, again, we clearly see 
The Bible tale’s absurdity ; 

Since it doth make the earth, at first, 

A shapeless mass with darkness cursed; 
Since it doth make the mighty deep 
Upon earth’s sunless surface sleep, 

While I have proved that earth could not 
Ilave seas at all, because too hot. 

And God then said, Let there be lights 
To sejwate the days and nights; 

From which remarks it must appear, 

To ev’ry man of sense, quite clear, 

That days and nights were sadly mixed, 
Until that time, when they were fixed. 
And when God did these lights invent, 

He “set them in the firmement,” 

Above which waters were vou know, 


TO 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE, 

As elsewhere I did fully show. 

Thus waters were above the sun, 

The moon, and stars, when they were done; 

But were these bodies all below 

The regions where the clouds do grow? 

If not, then priests are bound to show 
On every side, in regions far, 

Bevond the utmost outer star— 

J 

Beyond all other things that are, 

Beyond the utmost reach of light, 

In realms of endless, rayless night, 

Those waters vast of which they write— 

Of which they preach, and which, they say, 
The Lord, upon the second day, 

“Above the firmament some way, 

So placed that they were bound to stay; 
While “ in the firmament” he “set” 

The sun and stars , where they are yet, 

And where thev ever must be met, 

Betwixt the earth , on which we stand, 

And all those upper uniters grand. 

For three whole days, to keep them right, 
The Lord, we’re told, by his own might 
“Divided ” darkness dense from light, 

And day, of course, from dreary night 
But when these first three days had run, 
lie made the moon, the stars, and sun ; 

And then the work which he'd begun. 

And which, till then, himself had done, 

He made them do—made them “divide” 
The day from night, on every side. 

Tis clear, of course, to every one, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


71 


That God did not create the sun 
To cause the day which, we repeat, 

Without a sun. was then complete. 

The fifth day came, and God’s mere wishes 
Made seas produce both fowls and fishes ; 
And yet it doth seem strange to me 
That hi i ds should thus be made of sea, 
Especially as these are found, 

As elsewhere mentioned, made of ‘‘ground.” 
Ilout priests would have hard work to do 
To prove that both these tales are true; 
Indeed to prove that either one 
Is true, is more than they’ve yet done. 

The sixth day came, and quadrupeds, 

And creeping things, from earthy beds, 
Began in wondrous groups to rise, 

To fill the air with frightful cries. 

Huge elephants with monstrous trunks, 

And crocodiles, and sheep, and skunks, 

And wasps and centipedes, with stings, 

And bats, with hateful leather wings, 

And snakes, and hippopotamuses, 

And huge thick-skinned rhinoceroses, 

And apes, most horrid ugly cusses, 

And greedy lions, fierce for prey, 

And bed-bugs, just as fierce as they, 

And camels, weasels, bumble-bees, 

And poodle-dogs, and hounds, and fleas, 

And monkeys—some with prehensile tails - 1 
And many pairs of patient snails; 

And alligators—mostly jaws— 

And grisly bears with horrid paws, 


THE DEVIL 8 DEFENSE. 




*7 > 

i J 


And grunting pigs with rooting snouts, 
And sloths, most wondrous lazy louts, 

And lizards, cows, and buffaloes, 

And sev’ral kinds of bucks and does, 

And horses, zebras, long-eared asses, 

And hundreds more that feed on grasses; 
And fierce gorillas, wild baboons, 

And rabbits, squirrels, hares, raccoons, 

And porcupines, and kangaroos, 

And horned horses—now called gnus— 
And hedge-hogs, civet-cats, and minks, 
And musk-deer, prized for precious stinks, 
And moose, and antelopes, and rats, 

And elks, giraffes, and common cats, 

And shepherd dogs and water-skippers, 
And* tigers, toads, and gallinippers, 

And reindeer, butterflies, and mice, 

And beetles, moths, and worms, and lice, 
And itch bugs, frogs, and honey-bees, 
Mosquitoes, gnats, and peccaries, 

And thousands more such things as these, 
Came bursting forth to life and light, 

And gave the birds so sad affright, 

That they at once all took to flight. 

And then God said, u Let us make man,* 
Just like ourselves, if so we can. 

From these remarks, quite clear ’tis made, 
That God, in making man, had aid ; 

But who it was that helped him then 
A myst’ry is to me and men. 

A few—hard-pressed, of course—declare, 
That God had scores of angels there 


THE DEVIL 3 DEFENSE. 


73 


Who helped him carry out his plan 
Of manufacturing a man. 

These men suppose the “ our ” and “ us ” 
Are well explained by teaching thus. 

A greater number scorn this view 
As evidently quite untrue; 

And yet the best that they can do, 

To men of common sense like you, 

Will seem scarce better, I suspect, 

Than doth this view which they reject 
Three Gods they make instead of one— 
The Father, Holy Ghost, and Son— 

And have the work in question done 
By all of these; and, teaching thus, 
They clear away the “our” and “us.” 

At any rate, they’re free to say, 

There surely were, and are to-day, 

Three heads to one God, any way; 

And what concerning man was said, 

Was uttered forth by one Godhead, 

Or else by all the three instead— 

Each head addressed the other two, 
Suggesting what the three should do ; 
And these three heads, discoursing thus, 
Had need to use both “our ” and “us.” 
And now you all may clearly see 
Whence came your Holy Trinity, 

Or single God composed of three— 

Your frightful God monstrosity. 

Besides all these, there are a few 
Who hold the foll’wing nov3l view: 
That new-made apes were fooling round, 


74 


THK DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


Where lamps of clay could still be found, 
Upon the Lord’s creation ground, 

And trying hard to imitate 
Such things as they’d seen him create, 
That he, perceiving every ape 
Was almost like himself in shape, 
Conceived at once a wondrous plan 
To make a Godlike apish man ; 

That ’twas to them, while planning thus, 
He used the pronouns “ our ” and “ us.” 

Of all these doctrines most agree 
To that which makes one God of three, 
And hence this doctrine ’tis that we 
Do now discuss more specially. 

A great dilemma they escape 
Who thus to God assign a shape 
More horrible, it seems to me, 

Than that of ausht that we can see— 

A shape like tint of Cerberus, 

Whom poets have described to us 
As something like a dog would be 
With bodies one and noddles three; 

And who, as they go on to tell, 

Was wont to guard the gate of hell. 

But, granting that this doctrine’s true* 
Doth it not seem quite strange to you 
That men are not three-headed, too? 

In God’s own image they were made, 

Or should have been, yet I’m afraid 
They ne'er were finished, since we see 
They’ve but one head instead of three. 
Two heads, at least, each man doth lack, 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 

Since God kept just that number back; 

And many men who have each one 
Might almost just as well have none, 

Since that thev have is far too small 
To be of an}’ use at all, 

Unless it be to hang a hat 
Upon, or some such use as that 
All men have cause, it seems to me, 

’Gainst God to charge dishonesty, 

For claiming that he’d made them what 
He must have known that they were not 
Some men, whose names I need not call, 

Say God no image hath at all; 

That e’en one-headed men have got, 

Tn this respect, what he hath not; 

And that they hence should not complain 
So long as one head doth remain. 

While ’mong themselves men thus do fight, 
’Tis hard to say just who is right; 

But, since ’tis now denied by none 
That three heads better are than one, 

I still repeat my former view, 

That ev’ry man’s been robbed of two, 

And hath a right, without delay, 

For those two heads to claim full pay. 

One Bible story doth declare 
That God made man a wedded pair, 

And ordered them, as there was need, 

To do the best they could to breed. 

This hath both man and woman made 
The last of all, with much parade, 

But doth not mention anywhere, 


8 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE, 


Tiie stuff of which he made this pair. 

Another story doth assert, 

That man was made entire of dirt, 

And finished off, and long installed 
In Eden, ere the beasts were called 
From out the silent, lifeless ground 
In which, a3 dust, they lay around. 

This tale declares ’twas God’s first plan, 
When making this mud gentleman, 

To have him live a single life. 

And hence for him prepared no wife; 

But that, when God had fairly tried 
This mud-made man, without a bride, 

He found the fellow would not pay, 

While living thus, in any way ; 

That then, to save the precious clay 
Of which the man was made, they say, 

It hath God seek a proper mate 
To solace man’s too lonely state; 

It hath him try, at first, to find 
Among the beasts of every kind, 

A mate to suit this rnud man’s mind, 

Then hath him take, from man’s own side, 
A rib, and make of this a bride. 

But, passing on, let’s now proceed 
To view these new-made creatures feed. 

The pigs, two worthless, scrubby runts, 
Gave vent to sundry warning grunts. 

Then stopping, not to look around. 

Began to root up all the ground, 

Where God’s potatoes then were found. 
When he beheld what they were doing, 


77 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

Both busy grunting, rooting, chewing, 
lie tried at once to drive them out, 

But quickly turning round about, 

They brought their tails direct to front, 
Then let him know, with one great grunt, 
That pigs like they were never wont, 
Without a fuss, to driven be; 

And that, if he kept on, he’d see 
That being driven wa’n’t their nat’r, 

That e’en in spite of their Creator— 

Unless their fear was made much greater— 

They’d eat up every -p’tat’r 

Before they'd go; and well he knew 
That what they said they meant to do; 

He let them lienee have their own way, 
And this they still will have to*day. 

But, letting these and others pass 
That feed on roots, and herbs, and grass, 
The birds and beasts of prey, alas ! 

That never yet had tasted food, 

Were forced to wait, in hungry mood, 

For sev’ral years, as there was need, 

To give those creatures time to breed, 

On which themselves were bound to feed. 
And, even then, you plainly see, 

There must have been great scarcity, 

Since some carniv’ri seem to beat, 

In rearing young the beasts they eat 
But priests declare, with knowing nod, 

That “nothing is too hard for God;” 

That beasts of prey, and birds, and all 
Ate grain and grass before man’s fall 




78 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


This may be true, and yet to me, 

It seemeth strange that it should be; 

The leopard fierce beside the cow 
Would be a truly strange sight now; 

So would the wolf beside the lamb, 

The lion bold beside the ram, 

The grisly bear beside the ox, 

The cock and hen beside the fox, 

The tiger fierce beside the ass, 

In one great pasture eating grass; 

But these objections all must fail, 

If you would have the Bible tale 
As real history prevail. 

But all these rav’nous beasts of prey 
Were then well fitted, so they say, 

For eating grass, and grain, and hay. 

Of course, their fore legs had fror.t knees, 
Their fangs—they had no need of these— 
Their teeth, of course, were grinders then, 
As are the teeth of sheep and men. 

Their jaws, instead of gaping wide. 

As now, when flesh they do divide. 

Must then have moved from side to side, 
As do the jaws of ox or ass, 

When he is chewing grain or grass. 

And had poor Eve not sinned at all, 

And caused old hen-pecked Adam’s fall, 
These rav’nous beasts and birds of prey 
Would still be eating grain and hay. 

This \\ould be rather hard, I know, 

In lands of everlasting snow, 

Where grain and grass do never grow. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


79 


The arctic fox, and polar bear, 

And other beasts residing there, 

.Would have a sorry time, indeed, 

If forced on grass and grain to feed. 

But since we must—say what we may— 
Believe that grass, and grain, and hay, 
Were furnished then to beasts of prey, 

We now will give a moment’s heed 
To hungry creatures still in need; 

The ticks, the bed-bugs, lice, and fleas, 

And many more such things as these. 

God thought the fleas could hop about 
And help themselves, without a doubt, 
And hence of these he took no care, 

But let them scatter everywhere. 

The precious bugs, howe’er, ’tis said, 

That they might thus be surely fed, 

He placed in Adam’s only bed, 

Where they remained, their Maker’s pride, 
In peace, and greatly multiplied; 

Where they grew old, at last, and died; 
When they each cup of joy had tried; 

Died dead, yet never knew one blight 
From sorrow’s touch ; but, every night, 
Had often fed, with all their might, 

With inexpressible delight, 

On Adam’s flesh, which seemed to be, 

To them, a wondrous luxury. 

Then God, it seems, to spare the madam, 
Put all his precious lice on Adam; 

And there, on his renowndd head, 

These patient creatures lived, ’tis said, 


80 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


And ate, and drank, and slept, and bred; 
And. having quarters warm and nice, 

This whole great family of lice 
No sorrows knew in Paradise. 

The itch-mites, placed on Adam’s skin, 

As then they were, went straightway in, 
And ate their fill of Adam’s flesh, 

Which then, of course, was sweet and fresh, 
And laid their eggs, all duly hatched, 
Although the place was fiercely scratched 
God next made Adam’s stomach squirm 
With many a parasitic worm, 

Which was so formed, you’re well aware, 
That it could live in comfort there, 

But could not any otherwhere. 

He theD took ticks, so flat and thin, 

And stuck them fast to Adam’s skin. 

And there they stuck, like creatures wise, 
Before the Lord’s delighted eyes, 

And grew, ’tis said, to wondrous size. 

And then, to give these, too, their rights, 
Their share of unalloyed delights, 

God had mosquitoes come of nights, 

And take of Adam countless bites; 

And these, of course, he had to bear, 
Although lie had no blood to spare, 

Because he had no clothes to wear. 

All these and more bit Adam then, 

As they still bite some gentlemen ; 

And when they all bit as they should 
The Lord declared them “very good.” 

Thu9 all went well till Adam’s fall, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


81 


When he was changed, as were they all. 
And now we’ll take a hasty view 
Of that same fall, so sad and true. 

Which made all men, so priests do tell, 
Become the rightful heirs of hell. 

Had Eve not sinned by eating fruit, 

Men still might be in good repute; 

And God might still be pleased to bless 
Them all with pristine nakedness 
And ignorance, in which, we’re told, 

They all were deeply sunk, of old. 

The state the lowest tribes are in 
Is that in which all would have been, 

For houses, clothing, learning, all 
Are but results of of Adam’s fall. 

The Bible tale declares a snake 
Caused Eve that first false step to take, 
And there’s no evidence at all 
That I helped him cause her to fall. 

Tis true that John called me a snake, 

But ’twas when he was not awake; 

When he spoke this he merely dreamed— 
When nothing was just what it seemed— 
Or else delirium tremens brought 
Those horrid forms which then bethought 
Were swarming round him everywhere, 

In fiery pits and fiery air. 

He seemed to see a horrid beast 
That sported seven heads at least; 

And on these heads—seen in his cup — 
He thought ten horns were sticking up. 

He thought this horrid monster bore 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

Upon his back a gay old whore— 

A mistress Babylon, lie said— 

All decked in gorgeous robes of red. 

While lying there thus like a chunk, 

He thought, of course, this whore was drunk 
As men e’en now are often found 
Who think, when drunk, the solid ground 
And all things else are reeling round, 

When ’tis the fiery wine they feel, 

And nothing but themselves doth reel. 

While lying there, thus looking up, 

He thought this harlot had a cup 
Of wine; but since he then was sick, 
lie thought this wine was foul and thick; 
And when befuddled thus with drink 
This was quite natural to think. 

He thought he saw a queen with wings 
Go flopping round, with other things, 

As dragons red, and snakes, and lambs, 

And holy elders, saints, and rams, 

And locusts dread with fearful stings, 

And mighty angels borne on wings, . 

All bearing bottles full of wrath— 

A kind of liquor which God hath— 

And horses which I'd much admire 
Whose breath was brimstone, smoke, and fire 
Whose wondrous tales, of serpents made, 
Caused timid men to be afiaid. 

He thought he saw a star fall down 
And scorch a third of earth all brown, 

Then thought he saw what seemed to be 
A fiery mount drop in the sea 


1HE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


83 


And change its waters all to red, 

And cook its fish, so Johnny said, 

Till they were all as done as bread. 

And then, while in this wretched plight, 

He thought that I, too, hove in sight; 

But since his brain with wine was hot, 

He seemed to see what he did not. 

’Twas also wine in Johnny’s head 
That made him see all tilings as red ; 

’Twas just the same as colored glass 
Through which the rays of light do pass. 
Wine also was the cause whv he 
So many bottles seemed to see, 

And cups, and snakes, and liquors, too, 
And beasts and whores of purple hue. 

And then the beat, of which I spoke, 
Accounts for all the fire and smoke, 

And other wondrous things that seem 
To have appeared in Johnny’s dream. 

In fact, a man who ever was 
Long drunk can understand the cause 
Of all the horrid sounds and sights 
That troubled this old hermit’s nights. 

The Lord himself, ’twas understood, 

Who made the Snake, had called him good ; 
And hence the human pair, you see, 
Thought Snake was all he claimed to be. 
Indeed, he had a brilliant mind, 

And was to learning much inclined, 

And though he male one sad mistake, 

He still became a famous Snake. 

His reas’nings always seemed correct, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


84 

His actions always circumspect; 

And lienee poor Eve was early led 
To think all right that Snakie said. 

His intellect, you all perceive, 

Was brighter far than that of Eve; 

And when they argued, it was he 
That always gained the victory. 

His motions all were full of grace, 

And gen’rous love lit up his face, 

And all these things, we must believe, 

Were charming quite to little Eve. 

Poor girl! she knew so little then 
About the ways of snakes and men, 

That we are not surprised she fell 
To please the one she loved so well. 

Snake did not mean that Eve should fall 
In fact, he meant no harm at all; 

But then it caused him great distress 
To daily see her nakedness. 

Then who can wonder that he tried 
To find some means by which to hide 
Those nameless charms of hers which he 
Had hitherto been forced to see, 

In spite of his great modesty ? 

At times, poor Snake felt very sad, 

For Eve was fair in—all she had ; 

And since she’d never thought to doubt him, 
She oft came playing round about him,- 
Thus lending strength to every charm 
That did, at last, lead both to harm. 

She little knew the passions then 
That govern snakes as well as men; 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


85 


And, since he was her darling pet, 

She ofttimes did, it seems, forget, 

And folding him within her arms, 

Did make him touch her wondrous charms. 
Of course, this almost maddened Snake, 
And yet he had so much at stake 
That he resolved, while tempted thus, 

To still remain quite virtuous. 

But well he knew he’d not hold out, 

While such temptations were about; 

And, since he knew a certain fruit 
Which would, at once, beyond dispute, 
Enable this poor girl to see 
How much she lacked true modesty, 

’Twas but his duty, so he thought, 

To have this change upon her wrought; 
And hence he did cause her to steal 
And eat of it one good square meal. 

He wished to do the best he could 
For Eve so beautiful and good; 

And he believed ’twould better be 
To have her dressed more decentl} r ; 

To have those charms put out of sight 
That tortured him both day and night. 

He did not wish a breath of blame 
To cause her cheeks to glow with shame ; 
And hence, instead of chiding her— 

Rude though her manners surely were— 
He thought it better far, we see, 

To have her find that wondrous tree, 
Whose luscious fruits, he understood, 
Would make her wise as she was good. 




THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

He knew that should she take of it, 

She’d see at once just what was fit 
Eor her own sex, and would not be 
Again devoid of modesty. 

And who can blame this honest Snake, 

For this his first, his last mistake? 

Should we condemn him when we know 
His motives pure for doing so? 

Just put yourself in Snakie’s place 
And then consider well the case; 

If, when thus placed, you’d do the same, 

You’ll spare, of course, poor Snake from blame. 
Just think, one moment, how ’twould be, 

If you such charms should daily see; 

If some young Eve, most wondrous fair, 

Should sport around you everywhere, 

With no attire except the curls, 

So beautiful on many girls; 

If, all alone with such a one, 

In some deep glade where e’en the sun 
Was banished quite; where there were none 
That could by any chance find out 
What you and she might be about; 

If, placed with her as you believe 

That Snake was placed with little Eve, 

Do you suppose that you would take 

A wiser course than did the Snake? 

The best of men might, after all, 

As was the Snake, be made to fall; 

And hence it would be well, you see, 

To have for him some charity. 

And why did God, who must have known 


THE devil’s defense. 87 

_ ‘ - . ' ► 1 « • !' r . J ■ " ' **-• V 

What Snake would do if let alone, 

Permit these things all thus to be 
For Eve’s unending misery? 

Had he, do you suppose, no pow’r 
To give her aid in that dread hour; 

To snatch her forth from Snakie’s net, 

And keep her good and happy yet? 

Will e’en your priests presume to say 
That since he failed poor Eve that way, 

He may not fail you all some day ? 

If he’s omniscient, he must see 
Whatever is, or is to be; 

If he is good, as priests all say, 

He must wish sin all done away; 

And, if he is omnipotent, 

He can, of course, all things prevent 
That should not be. From this, ’tis plain 
That sin, if it doth still remain, 

Doth clearly prove, beyond dispute, 

That he doth lack some attribute 
Which I have named. If he doth see 
That sin exists, ’tis plain that he 
Must either will that it should be, 

Or else must want the pow’r, you know, 

That could effect its overthrow. 

From this, you doubtless clearly see 
That sin is bound a myth to be, 

Or that, as I do fully show, 

Some godly attribute is so. 

But we do know that there is sin, 

Throughout the world we now are in; 

And, knowing this, can we deny . 






88 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


That priests do all most grossly lie 
When they declare, as oft they do, 

That all God’s attributes are true ; 

That he is infinitely good, 

And that he doeth all he should? 

The Snake was very well aware 
That God, with all-unceasing care, 

Did guard that wondrous knowledge tree 
Lest men should take its fruits and be 
Like unto Gods, in consequence, 

And he should lose his prominence. 

He thought his pow’r ’twould much enhance 
To keep all men in ignorance, 

And e’en to-day his priests do know 
That knowledge is his greatest foe; 

They always act upon the notion 
That ignorance supports devotion. 

He therefore swore an awful oath 
That he would promptly kill them both, 

The very day that they should dare 
E’en taste the fruit thus guarded there. 

But Snake, it seems, knew well enough 
That this vile threat was empty stuff: 

And he informed poor little Eve 
That she such stuff should not believe. 

She, promptly foll’wing Snake’s advice, 
Beached forth and plucked the fruit so nice, 
And ate of it, then gave a slice 
To poor old hen-pecked father Adam, 

Who ate, of course, to please his madam. 

Then, all at once—Snake knew’twould be 
Their nakedness they both did see : 

w 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

This made them feel much mortified, 

And they at once ran off to hide. 

Thus that forbidden fruit, you see, 

Taught your first parents modesty; 

And modest persons all should bless 
The fruit that first suggested dress. 
Especially the belle and beau, 

Entirely made of clothes, you know, 

Should thank poor Eve for that sad sin, 
Without which they would ne’er have been. 
Indeed, no one should now forget 
That all had been quite naked yet 
Had Snake not taught that famous pair 
The need they had of clothes to wear. 

Snake saw it all, and thought ’twas fun 
To see them both thus jump and run; 

But, while he loitered round about, 
Expecting them to venture out, 

God took a walk, as oft he did, 

Quite near the place where they were hid. 
’Twas now about the set of sun, 

And he knew not what they had done; 

But, passing near his fav’rite tree, 

He chanced a broken limb to see; 

He also missed some luscious fruits, 

And saw Eve’s tracks about the roots. 

Confirmed at once in his belief 
That Eve had come to be a thief, 

He promptly turned and took her trail, 

But followed it without avail. 

Oft, blind with haste, he lost the track, 

Then had, of course, to turn right back. 


89 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE, 


And search all o’er the flow’ry ground, 

Until the track again was found. 

In this pursuit he soon found out 
That Eve had oft turned round about, 

Led on by curiosity, 

Some new and wondrous plant to see, . 

Or that she might enjoy the shade 
That drooping vines and branches made. 
These turns so hindered his pursuit, 

That he much feared the stolen fruit, 

Which he had made at wondrous cost. 
Would all be eaten up and lost. 

He therefore hastened all the more, 

And through the vines and branches tore, 
And yelled with rage, and cursed, and swore. 
His mind was set, cost what it mi 
To catch the thief that very night ; 

And this he did, as I have learned, 

But all he got he dearly earned. 

Quite near he passed them, once or twice, 
But they kept still as frightened mice; 

And since the light was growing dim, 

They still might have eluded him, 

For then, as now, the world was wide, 

And they had every chance to hide. 

But fear afflicted Adam then, 

As still it does too many men ; 

And he, in deadly fear for life, 

Close crept behind his little wife, 

Then answ’ring God’s repeated call, 

Declared that she had done it all. 

Of all the mean acts ever done, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


91 


There never was a meaner one 
Than Adam did, to save his life, 

By lying thus upon his wife. 

At first, Eve thought to be quite brave, 
But, thus betrayed by this viie knave, 

Her courage all at once did break, 

And she accused her friend the Snake. 
This filled poor Snake with horrid dread, 
And he, in turn, now brushward fled; 

But flight, alas! did not avail, 

For seizing his well-finished tail, 

God dragged him back along the path, 
Then shook the very earth with wrath. 
Poor Snake ! so great was his affright, 

That never more, from that sad night, 
Could he speak e’en one word aright; 

And this, ’tis said, grieved Snake the more, 
Because he spoke so well before. 

To punish him and spoil his charms, 

God then pinched off his legs and arms, 
And caused him down at once to fall, 

Upon his belly then to crawl, 

Ah now he does ; and, worst of all, 

This hurt his feelings; since a beau 
He never more could be, you know, 

While forced in this strange way to go. 

God also flattened out his head, 

To spoil his knowledge, so ’tis said, 

And beauty, too, and made instead 
Two horrid jaws, that widely spread; 

Then ordered him to eat his fill 
Of dust: but this. Snake seldom will; 


92 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


He always did dislike dry dust, 

And eats it only when he must. 

For using it too much while young, 

God also split poor Snakie’s tongue; 

And that no one might ever doubt 
This fact, he made Snake thrust it out 
At ev’ry person that he met; 

And Snake’s descendants do this yet 
This should a fearful warning be, 

To you, to shun loquacity; 

Especially while you are young, 

Lest God may also split your tongue; 

And never dare to be a rake, 

Lest God may make of you a Snake, 

And then serve you, as well you know, 

Th is Snake was served long, long ago. 

And then you should not know too much, 
For God, ’tis said, will punish such 
As knowledge gain ; your safest plan 
Will be to swallow all you can 
Of what the priests do give, but ne’er 
To men of sense give any ear; 

Remember that your parents fell, 

And made you all the heirs of hell, 
Because they knew some things too well. 

The Lord, to scare poor little Eve, 

Made her, ’tis said, at last believe 
That she should suffer sad disaster 
By being made to breed much faster. 

He said her husband, though a cur, 
Should always lord it over her; 

That she should be for him to use, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


93 


In everything, as he should choose; 

And man, to make the matter worse, 

Has more than carried out this curse, 

By making her in every state, 

To his desires subordinate. 

Before that time, I know not why, 

Men did not care to multiply, 

And would not, so ’tis said, e’en try, 

’Till God, from out his home on high, 
Commanded them at once to do it; 

And, even then—I always knew it— 
’Twas often very badly done, 

As being work instead of fun, 

As now ’tis called by every one. 

But, after that, there was no need 
For God to force mankind to breed j 
In fact, a wondrous change did then, 

In this respect, come over men; 

They never more inclined to shirk, 

But cheerfully performed this work; 
Indeed, because they saw 'twas right - 
They came at last to take delight 
In doing it, both day and night. 

The Lord, becoming more polite, 

Told Adam that ’twas not just right 
To eat that fruit, not e’en one bite; 

But that, however, ’twas a feast 

That should not hurt him, much, at least; 

That ’twas not eating gave offense, 

But want of manliness and sense; 

That he had shown himself a fool 
In letting Eve thus o’er him rule; 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


9*1 

In short that he’d been long suspected 
Of being overmuch hen-peckted; 

And that, to make him suffer more, 

He’d have to toil till life was o’er. 

God then made thistles, thorns, and weeds, 
And other things that no man needs, 

Grow up to plague this poor old shirk, 

Who always did dislike to work. 

Let ev’ry man, although a fool, 

From this tale learn his wife to rule; 

For should he e’er give up to her, 

It doubtless would to him occur 

That something sent by God—some curse— 

Would make his woful lot still worse. 

When God had somewhat eased his mind, 
By cursing snakes and human kind, 

He went right on, to show his might, 

And further gratify his spite, 

By giving birds and beasts that night— 
Although these always had done right— 

A sad and wonderful affright. 

This he accomplished, so they say, 

By changing some in such a way 
That they were bound to live bv prey, 

As wolves and lions live to-dav. 

In some he greatly changed the joints, 

Drew up their grinders into points, 

Reduced their stomachs much in size, 

And also greatly changed their eyes. 

The beasts then all had knees, as now 
The camel hath, and sheep, and cow; 

But these the Lord jerked quickly out, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

And turning them right round about, 
Made elbows, just the very thing 
For squatting down to make a spring, 

As doth the tiger every day, 

To seize his ever-watchful prey. 

These beasts, thus brought to such a pass 
That they no more could feed on grass, 
Began to feel, as well thej' might, 

For flesh a strange new appetite. 

The hungry tiger, fierce as now, 

At once devoured the gentle cow, 

With which he'd been for many days 
In perfect friendship wont to graze. 

The wolf devoured the bleating lamb, 
The leopard feasted well on rain. 

The hog that had been rooting there, 
Retired to rest inside the bear; 

In short, on eveiy hill and plain 
Were heard the cries of fear and pain, 
Where peace so long had held her reign. 

This gave, ’tis said, as well it might, 
The angry Lord so much delight, 

And did so gratify his spite 
That he became, that very night, 

In better humor far than he 
Had even hoped again to be. 

No wonder, then, that he began 
At once to study out some plan 
By which to rescue fallen man 
From out the fiery depths of hell, 

To which he’d doomed him when he felL 
The wondrous plan he chose at last 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 




\ 


Was, when four thousand years bad passed, 

To slay his own begotten son, 

Or have this horrid murder done, 

And let this monstrous sacrifice 

Place man all right before his eyes. 

All this he did, but 'twas no u go,” 

As every man of sense doth know, 

Since I get nine from every ten 

Of these blood-smeared mud gentlemen. 

Besides its inefficiency, 

This plan was clearly wrong, you see, 

Since it caused innocence to bleed 

When there was not the slightest need. 

Could not the Lord have pardoned man 

On some less foul and bloody plan ? 

Did adding one more monstrous sin 

Make men more just than they had been ? 

If not, wherein could be the need 

Of having them commit the deed? 

If killing Jesus did, in fact, 

Make men more fit for heav'n, the act 

Was surely good, and ev'ry one 

Who helped when this good act was done 

Did merit praise instead of blame, 

And none did have a juster claim 

Than did myself, since I did do ... 

As much as anv other two 

•/ 

This enterprise to carry through. 

When man first fell, God had no son, 
But vowed that he ? d beget him one, 
Although he was a baeh’lor then, 

And is so yet—so say wise men. 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


97 


Twas part, it seems, of his great plan 
To use the wife of some green man ; 

Then make this green one dream that there 
Was nothing wrong in this affair. 

The plan thus formed was carried out, ) 

And Joseph green had not a doubt 
But that ’twas all exactly right, 

As he had dreamed it was, one night 
Perhaps it was all right with green, 

But had it been yourself, I ween, 

Such dream could not have made you swear 
That some sly man had not been there 
Since you’d been gone; at any rate, 

No dream could e’er substantiate 
And make it clear to every mind 
A hidden fact of any kind. 

Had I a wife, and she should be 
With child, and surely not by me, 

’Twould take more dreams than green could boast, 
Although he dreamed, ’tis said, a host, 

To make me sure that any ghost, 

Especially a holy one, 

The very gen’rous deed had done 
Of getting me a darling son. 

The tale may all be strictly true, 

But does it seem just so to you ? 

Do men of sense oft hold the view 
That ghosts are wont such things to do? 

Perhaps ’twas right, but what’s the need 
Of having them make women breed ? 

If men had more of this to do 

Than they themselves could e’er get through. 


98 


THK DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


'Twould then, of course, be only fair 
To give the gods and ghosts a share. 

But while uncalled upon for aid, 

Why should they thus man’s rights invade? 
Which one of you would like, to-day, 

To see his own wife breed that way ? 

In fact, I candidly confess 
That I could never even guess 
Why God should be and no Godd-c$$, 

Or why among the ghosts no she 
Can satisfy a lustful he. 

And now I wish to say a word 
Of something more-than all absurd, 

And yet a thing, so priests do tell, 

You must believe, or go to hell. 

Of course I’d like to have hell crammed 
With men like you all duty damned, 

But I would also have you know 
Just why you're there compelled to go. 
Besides all this, I freely own 
That, since ’tis fools, and fools alone, 

That can believe the silty creeds 
Which priests declare salvation needs, 

I’d gladly render you all-wise, 

And thus against you shut the skies— 

The fool-believer’s paradise— 

And thus, with certainty, compel 
Your final entrance into hell. 

Remember that, by God’s own rules, 

None can reach heaven, except- fools; 

That all the rest must come to me, 

And share my home and destiny. 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


99 


That God and his begotten son— 

Two persons—should be only one, 

That God himself did once beget 
Himself upon a maid he met, 

Are truly wondrous myst’ries yet 
If he begat himself, indeed, 

Then his whole person, not his seed 
Alone, it clearly must have been 
That then to Mary’s womb went in. 

But could a maid have man so small 
That he inside her womb could fall, 

She might as well have none at all; 

And thus it clearly must have been, 

In Mary’s case, if God fell in. 

If this whole wondrous tale is true, 

It must, of course, be clear to you * 

That tiny men should shun the well 
Down into which the Lord then fell; 

And women, too, should shun the sin 
Of letting such men tumble in. 

This monstrous God doth me much bother, 
With one part Son and one part Father; 

And still another part, they say, 

The Holy Ghost—what is that, pray? 

One part remained at home on high, 

While one went down to earth to die; 

And thus, as priests have oft decided, 

This monstrous God was then divided, 

And made two gods, distinct, you see, 

In individuality ; 

Indeed, most priests declare that be 
Was then divided into three, 


100 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


These have the slice that’s called the Son 
Destroyed to please another one 
That’s called the Father, while the third, 
The Holy Ghost, they’ve all preferred 
To leave obscure, to such extent 
That no one can tell what is meant 
And thus, as I have clearly shown, 

God’s wrath upon himself alone 
Was fully spent; and you should learn 
From this that when your wrath doth burn, 
You should not hurt the guilty one, 

But hurt yourself, or have this done. 

That God’s command concerning fruit 
Was silly, quite, who dare dispute? 

What had they there that ever could 
Have done that pair more real good 
Than did the fruit of that same tree, 

Which gave to them, as you now see, 

Both common sense and modesty? 

Of modesty and common sense, 

They’d hitherto made no pretense; 

They’d never heard of them, and hence, 

Of all that fallen men now boast, 

They needed these two things the most 
And when the Lord did fail to slay 
That pair upon the very day— 

As he had threatened, so they say— 

On which they dared to disobey, 

I’m sure I see no reason whv 
His broken word was not a lie. 

And then, if they did merit death, 

Why did he not stop their own breath ? 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


101 


Why did he hold his wrath in store, 
Some forty centuries or more, 

Then crucify, for their sad fall, 

His son, who had not sinned at all? 

He had the guilty crucify, 

And cause the innocent to die; 

And this he did, ’tis said, that he, 

With greater ease and certainty, 

Might pardon sinners, instantly, 

And thus his crowd immensely swell 
With those whose proper place was hell. 
Jf this foul murder did more good 
Than any act of virtue could, 

I’m sure I see no reason why 

Men should not murder, steal, and lie, 

And thus a home in heaven win, 

By doing all they can of sin. 

Perhaps this is the explanation 
Why many men who need damnation, 
Whose only earthly occupation 
Is doing wrong, expect salvation. 

When Judas did his master sell, 

He simply did the duty well 
Which God, as you are well aware, 
Required of him, just then and there; 
Poor Judas, then, should be a saint, 

And I know not just why he “ain’t n 
Had all refused, upon that day, 

The needful sacrifice to slay, 

God would have failed, you clearly see, 
To save a single soul from me; 

Upon this monstrous bloody plan. 


102 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


He then could not have saved a man ; 

And hence, of course, the whole creation 
Would mine have been by destination. 

If Christ you love because he died, 

Your love you surely should divide 
With all of those who crucified, 

And helped him off in just the way 
That would the world’s great ransom pay. 
His part he had to act, you know, 

And they had theirs, as now I show; 

And God himself did all prepare 
For just the parts they acted there; 

Had any failed, hell would be crammed 
With men incontinently damned. 

And now, if this whole tale be true, 

What glory, doth it seem to you, 

Doth thence to God himself accrue? 

How many men would you now swear 
That he e'er saved by this affair? 

If any, doth it not appear 
That he for them paid very dear? 

And are you fully sure that they 
Should not have been in hell to-day, 

Or far along, at least, that way ? 

They’re safe in heaven, but would you swear 
That they deserved to be thus there? 

Were they much better, do you know, 

Than millions who are now below, 

In realms of everlasting woe? 

And when you’re done with earthly toil, 
And “shuffle off the mortal coil,” 

Are you quite sure that you will be 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


103 

Among the very few that he 
Doth thus unjustly snatch from me? 

Have he and I e’er played a game 
In which I have not won the same ? 

Is not mine, then, the better claim 
To praise and everlasting fame? 

Doth wisdom true teach you to bow 
Before this triple monster now ? 

Hath he not failed in every plan 
Devised by him to rescue man? 

Of all he does, are not the fruits 
The sending me of more recruits ? 

Of all the men he makes to dwell 
On earth, do you not know full well 
Nine-tenths pull up at last in hell? 

Then would it not true wisdom be 
To turn your hearts now unto me? 

Should you not reverently bow 
As worshipers before me now, 

Then, when your days on earth are past 
And you’ve pulled up in hell at last, 

Have lost the game and I have won it, 

May you not vainly wish you’d done it? 

I next will notice what is said 
Of Cain, who broke his brother’s head 
Because that brother seemed to be 
On better terms with God than he. 

This hapless lad, so runs the fable, 

Was known as pious little Abel; 

And was so good that tis no wonder, 

Like good boys now, he soon went under. 

But ’twas quite otherwise with Cain, 


104 


THE DEVIL 3 DEFENSE. 


Whose heart was set on getting gain; 

And who, in wealth, was greatly blest, 

Since he whole cities soon possessed. 

To punish him, so I have read, 

For breaking thus his brother’s head, 

A mark was placed on him by God, 

And then he sought the land of Nod. 

He feared that some one might waylay him, 
For Abel’s sake, perhaps, and slay him ; 

And God designed that mark to be 
A pass with all that Cain might see. 

Just what it was, I’d like to know, 

And yet no man that mark can show; 
Perhaps ’twas but God’s cattle brand, 

Which then was known throughout the land, 
And which, on Cain, would clearly show— 
Wherever that poor wretch might go— 

That he was still God’s property, 

And must be spared accordingly. 

Had not that mark been understood, 

It would, of course, have done no good; 

And had it not been well respected, 

It would more surely have directed 
’Gainst Cain the vengeance he expected. 

But hath it ever yet appeared 

Who all those were that Cain so feared; 

And who the woman was that he 
Did make his wife so speedily? 

Besides himself and Adam then 
There were on earth no other men 
Of his own race; and, hence, ’tis clear 
That those whom he so much did fear, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


106 


And his own wife, so very dear, 

Belonged to quite another rac3 
Who have in hist’ry found no place. 
’Twas many years ere Mother Eve 
Was known again and did conceive; 

And it can hardly be believed 
That Cain feared men not yet conceived, 
Or that the lass he made his wife 
Ilad not yet entered into life. 

The Bible clearly shows that men 
Were somewhat nurn’rous even then; 

But who they were will doubtless be 
Forever vailed in mystery. 

Again, I’m puzzled much, indeed, 

When I of God’s young sons do read, 
Who took for wives the daughters fair 
Of men who then resided there. 

These gay young gods pitched into sin— 
Although the old God’s nearest kin— 

As if quite used to it they’d been, 

And made their father much regret 

That e’er he’d sired so-a set 

Men, also, then, did disobey 
This older God in every way; 

In fact, they asked him lir.tle odds, 

But followed those young festive gods; 
It grieved him much, he said, at heart, 
To think he’d made these men so smart 
At last his wrath became so hot 
That he declared he’d spare them not; 
That he would drown them all some day, 
And even get with them that way. 



106 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

All this he did, as doth appear, 

But I must make digression here, 

And ask whence came those sons of God 
That occupied the land of Nod. 

Where were they born? and how? and when'i 
In what respect were they not men? 

Were all of them, think you, full brothers? 

If not, who were their sev’ral mothers? 

Were all those mothers Goddesses? 

Or were they human Noddesses? 

And what did God beget sons for, 

While he was still a bachelor? 

Besides this most ungodly set, 

Whom he did somehow then beget, 

He afterwards, the story runs, 

In time of Job, had other sons; 

And, later still, another one, 

Whom priests declare his only son. 

This youngest son, I scarce need tell, 

Was Jesus C. Immanuel, 

A low-born child of Bethlehem, 

A city near Jerusalem. 

Was he, indeed, the only one 
That ever was God’s real son? 

By whom were all the rest begot, 

If they by God himself were not? 

If they were only men of Nod, 

Why were they called the “sons of God? M 
Did lie employ as proxies then, 

To sire his sons, poor mortal men? 

If this humiliating view 
Of his affairs, indeed, be true, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


107 


Then Jesus, too, deny who can, 

May also have been but a man, 

Thus sired upon the proxy plan. 

Without a body, how, indeed, 

Could God have introduced the seed 
Which made the so-called virgin breed? 

Of course he could not, like a man, 

Have used the good old-fashioned plan, 
Since that required, as well you know, 

A fleshy organ used just so— 

An organ which he ne’er could show. 

What had he then that could produce 
Such seed as that for virgin’s use? 

’Tis clear that he could not have done 
What would have made that child his son; 
Since he was not equipped to do it, 

He must have put a mortal to it; 

And hence this Jesus had, you see, 

Like you, n man-paternity ; 

At any rate, ’tis my own doxy 
That God was sire alone b}' proxy. 

He could, in that way, still beget him, 

On any maid that now would let him; 

But no young man, if sired that way, 

No matter what the maid might say, 

Could pass for God with us to day. 

And 3 r et his claims would be as just 
As those which priests upon us thrust, 

Of Jesus, who, they love to boast, 

Was sired by God’s own Holy Ghost, 

With which, they say, if there was need, 

He could cause all our maids to breed, 


10a 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


And fill the land with little ones 
Who would, of course, be all his sons; 

A jolly set of little “cusses”— 

Just think of it! and all “ Jes-usses.” 

Were these young gods all born on earth? 
If not, where did the} r have their birth? 

And why w r ere there no young Godd-esses> 
To soothe these Gods with sweet caresses, 
And thus give them no cause to roam 
In search of wives away from home? 

In short, it should be made appear 
What business those young gods had here v 
And what became of them at last, 

When their career on earth w r as past 
When God made man, did he know all 
That would result from that man’s fall? 

If so, ’tis plain enough he meant 
To make a failure, then repent. 

If he foreknew the course they’d take, 

Why did he still proceed to make 
That human pair and cunning snake, 

And start them out that course to fill, 

Unless their fall was his own will ? 

But, if he did not, could not know 
What way these creatures all would go; 

If he exerted all his might 
To keep them innocent and right, 

If then he had no means at all 
To rescue them from that sad fall, 

If he failed then, and doth so still, 

For want of strength and not of will, 

His ease demanded pity then, 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

And doth so still from all good men. 

But then he should, without a doubt, 

In that case, step right “down and out;” 
His rulership supreme, you see, 

He should at once resign to me; 

Should deem himself quite fortunate 
To thus escape the fearful weight 
Of cares that crowd his wretched state, 

I’d give to all their proper level—•• 

In fact, of course, I’d play the devil, 

Till every snake and every soul 
Should meekly bow* to my control. 
Indeed, should God continue still 
Devoid of strength to do his will, 

A sense of duty may constrain 
Me soon to close his feeble reign. 

With half his numbers, once I fought—■ 
As you have doubtless all been taught— 
And then came very near, you know, 
Accomplishing his overthrow. 

Since I have now, for every ten 
Of his, at least a hundred men, 

Can doubt exist that I would win, 

Should war between us now begin? 
Besides all this, my hundred men 
Are better trained than are his ten— 

Mine, long inured to war’s alarms, 

Would be invincible in arms. 

His are a motley crowd, you know, 

Of women, children, priests, and Co., 

Of whom few could to battle go; 

And, e’en these few, if read aright. 


109 


no 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


Would rather run than stand to fight; 

Old pampered priests who always would 
Shun toil and danger, when they could; 
Who, while on earth, ’tis understood, 

For chickens, money, women, wine, 

And other things in that same line, 

Had appetites extremely fine, 

But who did usually decline 
To risk themselves in any cause 
In which they thought great danger was. 
Besides these priests, there are their tools, 

Who, here on earth, are all-fools ; 

But who, up there, unlike the rest, 

In war would do their very best. 

These would, of course, give God some might, 
But, decked in petticoats of white, 

They’d be ridiculous in fight; 

And, getting one good look at me, 

Would turn their petticoats and flee. 

Of such, each one of my brave men 
Could put to flight from five to ten; 

And ’twould be quite a source of fun 
To see these petticoaters run. 

On earth this class of fools, you know, 
Intensest enmity do show 
To reason, common sense, and me, 

And every other thing they see 
That doth with their creeds disagree. 

They always sing the loudest praise 
To their own God, in their own ways, 

But look with wonderful amaze 
And ire on ev’ry other man 



THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


Ill 


Who serves his God on his own plan. 

Can priests and fools, think you, be sure 
That peace on high will long endure? 

Can they” count every danger past, 

When they get home to God at last? 
Since war, as they are well aware, 

Once raged in all its terrors there, 

Why may it not again, I pray, 

At some not very distant day? 

Why may not I the victory gain, 

And o’er God’s lost dominions reigu ? 
Then would it not in men be wise 
If, ere the conflict doth arise, 

They'd make of me a lasting friend 
On whom they always could depend? 

Should I as victor ever shine, 

The priests, of course, would fall in line, 
And swear that they'd been always mine. 
The loudest anthems they would sing 
In praise of me, their god and king. 

Before me they would humbly kneel, 

And show, with unremitting zeal, 

The love which they e’en now do feel, 

But which they’ll never dare display 
Until they’re sure that it will pay. 

In short, just one great victory 
Would make, as you must plainly see, 

A god omnipotent of me. 

Should all this be, as I do trust 
It shortly may—indeed as't must— 

I then will have a better chance 
To rid the world of ignorance; 




112 THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

To drive all superstitions hence, 

And teach all men good common sense. 

My chance, you know, hath hitherto 
Been very poor, and yet ’tis true 
That every useful thing you see 
Doth owe its origin to me. 

But let us now return again, 

And see how God destroj^ed all men, 

As he had sworn he’d surely do, 

For paddling each his own canoe ; 

For showing him, as they’d oft done, 

That they’d no God, and needed none. 

The birds and beasts of every kind 

Had shared man’s fatal fall, we find ; 

And hence, of course, could nevermore 

Yield God delight, as theretofore. 

At last he grew, it seems, afraid 
Of all the living things he’d made; 

And since he’d done the best he could 
To curse them into being good, 

And all had been without success, 

He now resolved, in great distress, 

To bring a flood without delay, 

And sweep them all from earth away. 

The flood was brought, and great and small 
Of living creatures perished all ; 

But e’en in this great enterprise 

God did some things that were not wise. 

He saved, it seems, of every breed, 
However vile, enough for seed, 

From which a harvest quickly grew 
Of beasts and birds, a mighty crew, 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


113 


And men e’en worse than those he slew. 

And since the beasts, and birds, and men 
That were for future use saved then 
Were all preserved upon a bark, 

Which Bible writers call the ark, 

It may, of course, be well enough 
To know if they and all their stuff 
Could have the room that they would need 
To make this enterprise succeed. 

When we, however, see the list 

i 

Of living things that do exist, 

And know that none of these were missed; 
When we count all the species, 

And know that two, at least, of these— 

Of many seven—vere directed 
To be on board that ark collected, 

With proper food and drink for all, 

We find the ark by far too small 
For even half the beasts and men 
That needed transportation then. 

Its size you all can calculate, 

And, though you’ll find it very great, 
You’ll also find that what I say 
Is quite correct in every way. 

Besides, how could old Noah know 
Just how to fit the ark up so 
That every creature, great and small, 

Might have a proper cell or stall? 

Old Noah must have had a book 
In which he frequently did look, 

To learn the size and habits all 
Of every creature great and small f 








114 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


To learn just where they might be found. 

And where, on all the earth around, 

Their proper food did most abound; 

To learn what medicines to give 
To each, when sick, that he might live; 

And how he should the food prepare 
For all the things assembled there; 

And, finally, for his salvation, 

To learn the art of navigation. 

"When thus he knew, beyond a doubt, 

Just what each could not do without, 

He brought for some dry, heated sand, 

For others moister, cooler land. 

For polar bears and such as they, 

He stored great heaps of iee away ; 

Since these would all have quickly died » 

Had they not been with ice supplied. 

For other creatures, not a few, 

No food but fish, quite fresh, would do; 

Since that’s the only food they eat, 

And nothing else their wants would meet ..r 
These fish, I scarcely need remark, 

Were kept alive upon the ark; 

And hence required great tanks, you know, 
Through which pure streams were made to flow 
Of waters which were placed just so 
That they could be supplied to all 
The creatures that for them might call. 

About four thousand tons of hay 
Were stored on that same ark away; 

And this, as you no doubt perceive. 

In half the ark no room would leave. ^ 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


115 


Of seeds and grain near half that weight 
Must have been taken on as freight 
To serve as food a full supply 
For things that otherwise would die. 
Large numbers had to have fresh fruits, 
And others had to have fresh roots, 
While others would have quickly died, 

If they had not been well supplied 
With tender leaves of just that kind 
To which their natures were inclined. 
Each tree and fruit, ’tis now well known, 
Has something feeds on it alone; 

Some bird or beast that soon would die, 
If long deprived of this supply, 

Or else some insect, very small, 

That feeds on nothing else at all. 

For these old Noah did prepare 
Some gardens vast, with wondrous care, 
In which each tree and plant was found 
That grew in all the earth around 
One garden was, of course, for those 
More hardy plants from arctic snows; 
And this, to make its plants secure, 

Was arctic made in temperature. 

Another was for plants alone 
That grew within the torrid zone; 

And this, of course, their wants to meet, 
Was well supplied with torrid heat 
Around the former heaps were piled 
Qf ice to make it cold and wild, 

While round the latter wood was fired 
To make such heat as was required. 


116 THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

And there, amid the ark’s deep gloom, 
Ten million flow’rs at once did bloom, 

And there grew every species 
Of fruits, and shrubs, and vines, and trees; 
Great oaks, and elms, and palms, and ashes, 
And apples, prunes, and calabashes, 

And—but ’twould be entirely vain 
To mention half it did contain ; 

And yet upon the ark, for these, 

Full room was found, with utmost ease. 
How this was done I cannot show, 

Nor can the wisest priest do so, 

But God can do all things, you know. 

If you object that plants would die, 
Deprived of air, and light, and sky, 

I merely need make this reply: 

That all the living creatures need 
These things far more than plants, indeed; 
And that, if beasts and birds got.through 
Alive, then may it not be true 
That trees and plants survived thus too? 

Besides all this, that famous ark 
Was not, as men suppose, quite dark ; 

For God hung up, right at the start, 

Some little suns in every part, 

That then lit up that ark as well 
As gas lights up a large hotel. 

The plants and living creatures there 
Did sunlight have, yea, everywhere; 

And night was very quickly made 
By hanging o’er each sun a shade. 

Fresh air, of course, was well supplied 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


117 


Throughout the ark’s entire inside; 

And since there was no aperture 
Through which enough could come, 'tis sure 
That Noah had, in waiting there, 

A huge machine for making air; 

And this machine so vast, you know, 

By steam, of course, was made to go; 

And thus I prove a wondrous fact 
By arguments which men have lacked. 

Of water, no one can deny 
There must have been a vast supply ; 

A hundred hogsheads, any way, 

Or even more, for every day. 

This would have claimed a room for store 
Of monstrous size—a tenth or more 
Of all the ark, quite full before. 

Since, then, there was no room aboard 
In which that water could be stored, 

Tis evident that, like the air, 

’Twas made by works kept running there. 

When everything was thus prepared, 

For which the Lord or Noah cared, 

The living things, a countless horde, 
Permitted were to come on board. 

One pair of these, if measured right, 

Were neally thirty feet in height, 

And sixty feet or more in length, 

And wonderful in weight and strength. 

For these I scarcely need remark, 

A space, in size almost a park, 

Was found, of course, aboard the ark, 

And fitted up conveniently, 


118 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


With two strong floors instead of three. 
Besides these two, some eight or ten, 

Than elephants much larger, then 
Came marching in,‘as God did call 
Each one to his appointed stall. 

Then came the smaller beasts in crowds, 
And birds that dimmed the light like clouds, 
And horrid, hissing, creeping things, 

And insects borne on buzzing wings, 

Or creeping in at patient pace, 

And occupying each its place. 

Five thousand beasts, and some say more, 
Soon occupied the ark’s first floor; 

And each one did his very best 
To make more noise than all the rest, 

While forty thousand birds came in, 
Augmenting still the awful din, 

Till each square yard of upper floor 
Nine birds contained, and some say more. 
About a thousand creeping things, 

With horrid hiss and deadly stings, 

Among the rest came twining round, 

Till each its proper place had found. 

Ten thousand snails came in apace, 

Each one to its appointed place, 

And fifteen hundred thousand bugs, 

And ants, and butterflies, and slugs, 

And caterpillars, gnats, and fleas— 

In short, all living things like these' 

Came swarming in at once, they say, 

And height’ning, each in its own way, 

The scenes of that most wondrous day. 


THE DEVIL 3 DEFENSE. 


119 


When all were in, as well they might, 
They felt the pangs of appetite, 

And, since eight persons had to feed 
These countless thousands, all in need, 
And daily clean each cage and stall, 
And bear the filth away from all, 

They were compel led, you clearly see, 
To use un-heard of energy. 

Each man and woman had, we find, 

Of beasts and birds of every kind ; 

Of creeping things assembled there. 

Of snails that live and breathe in air, 
Full seven thousand every day, 

To feed on flesh, or fish, or hay, 

Or living ants, or worms, or fruits, 

Or tender leaves, or juicy roots, 

Or wood, or grain, or grass, or seed, 

As every creature then had need. 
Besides all this, each had to bear 
To all these creatures gathered there, 

At least twelve hogsheads, may be more, 
Of drink from out their ample store; 
And, more than this, to bear away 
At least three tons of filth each day. 

And e’en when this had all been done, 
Their daily tasks were scarce begun ; 
Since each had still to feed with care 
Two hundred thousand insects there, 
And every one with certitude 
Upon its own peculiar food. 

Of course the bed-bugs, lice, and fleas 
Were all provided for with ease; 


120 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


Since all the lice surviving then. 

Were on the heads of those four men, 

And in their clothes, where they did eat 
Their fill each day of Noah-meat; 

While, in the beds of these same men. 

The bugs and fleas were swarming then; 
But all the rest required, indeed, 

A vast amount of time to feed. 

Though all this work could not be done 
By eighty men, much less by one, 

Yon must believe the tale quite true, 

As all good Christians say they do, 

Or else be all dumped into hell, 

For being each an Infidel. 

And now, perhaps, ’twould be but fair 
To learn how Noah gathered there 
The living creatures, great and small — 

In short, the ark s vast cargo all. 

Some living things and also food 
Were there from every latitude; 

Who was it sought them out with care, 

And brought them all together there? 

Of course they would not all have come 
Alone, as hath been thought bv some; 
Since they could not have crossed the seas, 
Nor brought along the plants and trees 
On which they fed; nor could have known 
Just where to go, if thus alone. 

If they were all by Noah brought 
Together there, as some have taught, 

Great fleets must have been needed then, 
All manned by scientific men ; 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


121 


And treasures vast must have been spent 
To pay for ships and men thus sent. 

And, even then, years must have run, 

Ere all this work could have been done; 
And scientific men have taught, 

And you all know—at least you ought— 
That few of those that first were brought 
Could have, in such a place ( survived 
Till all the others had arrived. 

Nor would the food that each did need 
Have kept so long a time, indeed ; 

And, had they then gone back for more, 

It would have been the same thing o’er; 
Since other things would then have died, 
Which could not have been re-supplied 
Except by crossing ocean’s tide, 

And gathering them where they were found 
In distant lands, all scattered round. 

From all these things, it must appear, 

To men of sense, entirelv clear 

That all these things could ne’er have been 

By human beings brought thus in. 

Besides all this, had those bad men 
Been well supplied with good ships then, 
Would they have lain supinely down 
Beside these same good ships to drown? 
Would not the seamen, for the nonce, 

Have boarded those good ships at once; 

And there remained, a thing of course, 

Until the floods had spent their force? 

If, then, such flood did e’er occur 
At all, and if all creatures were 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


122 


E'er tiius preserved upon a bark, 

Upon that celebrated ark, 

We must assume as fully fair, 

That God himself brought them all there, 

Or had them brought, right through the air. 

Of course, we know that such assumption, 

With men who chance to have much gumption, 
Will not go down ; but, then, we know 
That ’twill with stupid men thus go; 

And stupid men are all that we 
Can count upon with certainty, 

To save, when all fair tests do fail, 

This truly monstrous Bible tale. 

We must assume, I now repeat, 

That angel bands with busy feet, 

And wings, and hands—oh ! thought sublime! 
Were occupied in every clime, 

Ascending trees to hunt for bugs, 

O’erturning stones to gather slugs, 

Or shaking brush to start out hares, 

Invading e’en the lion’s lairs, 

And gathering all things in by pairs. 

We must assume that, o’er the ark, 

The sky for seven days was dark, 

With clouds of angels bringing stores, 

From all the lands of earth and shores, 

And other clouds just starting out 
For other sim’lar stores to scout. 

We must assume, to save the tale, 

That elephants then fell like hail; 

In short, that beasts of every form 
Came tumbling down in one great storm; 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


123 


Came tumbling thus, without surprise, 

From out the angel-darkened skies. 

But when we ? ve thus assumed as true 
The wondrous things, as Christiaus do, 

Doth it not seem quite strange to you 
That those before whose very eyes 
These things occurred, felt no surprise; 
That when dark clouds had gathered round, 
When awful thunders shook the ground, 
When rains began from heaven to pour, 
And floods began to rush and roar, 

As they had never done before, 

Those wicked men in all their houses 
Held wedding feasts and grand carouses, 
And did not feel the least affright. 

Or seek the mountain s safer height, 

Until the valley’s lower ground 
A vast and turbid sea was found ? 

But, theu, no matter how to you 
These things appear, ’twould never do 
To even doubt that they are true; 

For should you doubt, you might as well 
For being thus an Infidel, 

Take up your home at once in hell, 

Where doubtless all at last must dwell. 

At last, when all those bad men knew 
That Noah’s words were coming true. 

That even then before their eyes 
A mighty flood was on the rise, 

It was a shocking sight to see 
Those crowds of poor humanity 
All struggling tip to higher ground, 


124 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


Where fleeting safety might be found. 

The torrents still upon them poured, 

The rising waves around them roared; 

The lurid lightnings, flash on flash. 

The deaf’ning thunder’s awful crash, 

The dreadful cries commingling there 
From thousands all in blank despair, 

Brought terror e'en to valiant men, 

Who never had known fear till then. 

Besides all this, the beasts of prey 
All forced from out their lairs away, 

And wild with rage, tore many a one 
Who had no power such fate to shun ; 

And thus the waves of that great flood 
All crimsoned were with human blood. 
’Mongst those who lived and struggled yet, 
Huge serpents, slimy, cold, and wet, 

Were coiling now with horrid hiss 
That heightened e’en a scene like this; 

And while their fangs with blood were dyed, 
Their victims fell before the tide. 

Dread night came on, and, oh ! how dark) 
To all save those within the ark; 

And countless thousands struggling on 
When night set in, by morn were gone. 

Great numbers, during that dread night, 
Were crushed to death or died of fright, 

As some huge serpent’s horrid form 
Coiled tightly round their bodies warm. 

When morning dawned, a scene then fell 
Upon their view too dread to tell. 

Ten thousand corpses, scattered wide, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


125 

Were borne upon the seething tide; 

And lions, tigers, snukes, and men 
In one dense mass were struggling then. 
Distinguished there, above the rest, 

A loving mother closely pressed 
Her shivering babe upon her breast; 

Her strength had failed—they waited, died, 

And floated out upon the tide 
That roared around on every side. 

At last a number, sorely pressed, 

Resolved that they would do their best 
To board the ark and try to save 
A few, at least, from such a grave. 

They quickly formed of floating wood, 

A dozen rafts, all strong and good, 

And manning each with eight or ten, 

All active, strong, and dauntless men, 

They neared the ark, not far away, 

Resolved to capture her that day. 

The ark hove to, as they drew near, 

For Captain Noah knew no fear; 

Nor did he deign to make reply 
When “Ark ahoy ! ” resounded nigh. 

When he beheld those men of sin, 

And saw the fix that they were in, 

His face lit up with vicious grin; 

He pressed upon his nose, just so, 

As naughty boys oft do, you know, 

And said, “ Aha ! 1 told you so! ” 

“ Great ark ahoy ! ” again they cried, 

And he quite promptly then replied 
By giving, what they’d not expected, 


126 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


A broadside full, all well directed. 

The heavy shots among them crashed, 

And raft ’gainst raft was wildty dashed, 

And when the smoke had cleared away, 

Eight rafts as total wrecks there lay. 

The other four, as well they might 
Now turned about and took to flight; 

But Noah thought’twould better be 
To make complete his victory, 

To suffer none to reach the shore; 

And hence again his cannons’ roar 
Resounded far those billows o’er, 

And those brave men returned no more. 

From far their friends, when ’twas too late, 
Beheld these heroes meet their fate; 

Beheld them sink, with none to save, 

Like men, the bravest of the brave ; 

Beheld them find a watery grave 
Beneath that flood’s resistless wave. 

Those friends, now crushed with dread despair, 
For life itself joon ceased to care; 

And still they struggled up and on, 

Until their waning strength was gone, 

’Twould pain me far too much to tell 
What unto all of these befeli; 

Suffice it, then, that day bv dav, 

/ » V V ' 

From millions, all soon passed a wav. 

A youth and maid, I know not why, 

Were last to love and lu^t to die. 

Together they had struggled up, 

Together drunk life’s bitt’rest cup, 

Till they had reached the mountain’s top. 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


127 


And had, of course, at last to stop. 

Their strength, their life was almost gone, 
Eternity began to dawn, 

And still their love lived on, right on. 
Around them rose the awful tide, 

And over all the world so wide 
No living thing was seen beside. 

They silent stood, for coming death 
Was stealing fast away their breath; 

One look of love, on earth the last, 

One fond embrace, and all was past; 

Then out upon the floods so vast, 

Their faithful hearts together pressed, 
Their bodies floated like the rest 
And all these things the Lord did then, 
Because he could not manage men ; 

To govern them he lacked the skill, 

And hence he had them all to kill. 

Some wicked unbelievers dare, 

So I’ve been told, to boldly swear 
That Noah had no cannons there • 

But very confident I am 

That Christians do not care a- 

What wicked unbelievers may 
Of this fine story have to say. 

Besides all this, you well do know 
That unbelievers ne’er can show 
How Noah could have checked the foe, 
When they resolved aboard to go, 

If he had not had cannons then 
With which to kill or scare those men. 

So far as I can learn, his boat 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


128 


Was all the one of any note 
Within their reach, and is it fair 
To hold that all the people there 
Permitted him, before their eyes, 

To bear away so rich a prize 

While still the floods were on the rise, 

And perished all just where they were, 

When they might have escaped on her? 

Is it not fairer, far, to hold 

That they did try, like heroes bold, 

To save themselves from death ’s alarms, 
But failed because of Noah’s arms? 

Is it not far the fairer view, 

To hold, as evidently true, 

That they did just as we would do? 

And is there anv doubt that we, 

•/ ' 

In case of such catastrophe, 

Would do our best, inspired by fear, 

To board such vessel lying near? 

All Christians swallow down the tale 
Of Captain Jonah’s hellish whale, 

And never think to disbelieve 
That Mary Joseph did conceive 
And bear a son on some new plan, 
While she was still untouched by man; 
And many more such tales as these 
They bolt with unexampled ease, 

But hear with incredulity 
That Noah used artillery ; 

And yet this cannon tale is far 
More likely than the others are. 

It matters not what these men say, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE, 


129 


We know that cannons are to day 
By men much used their foes to slay; 

But do fish now, as they did then, 

Gulp down and then spew up live men ? 
And do the maids of this our day, 
Untouched by men, bear children, pray? 

And now, since you would gladly know, 
Twould give me pleasure could I show 
How all that water was created, 

And where it went, when ’twas abated. 

But this, I must with shame confess, 

I cannot venture e’en to guess; 

Since we by calculations fair, 

Discover that in all the air 

That wraps the earth, there could not be, 

At any one time, certainly, 

More moisture than, if on the ground, 
Would form a sheet, the earth around, 

Five inches deep ; yet priests declare 
That, mostly out of this same air, 

A sheet of water then did fall— 

To drown those ancient sinners all— 

That covered the whole earthly ball, 

Five miles in depth, or even more, 

And that, when this great storm was o’er, 
Much water still remained in store. 

How this was done I do not know,J 
Since clouds themselves do rarely go 
To heights so great, and, when they do, 

No drops of rain, however few, 

From them can fall while floating there, 

In that intensely freezing air. 


i 


ISO 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

Of course the clouds did not supply 
The waters which then rose so high— 

Which rose, ’tis said, with Noah’s boat, 

Three miles above where rain-clouds float. 

Some say that then the mighty “ deep ”— 
Whate’er that was—was roused from sleep, 
And made to yield its wat’ry store— 

Five miles in depth, or even more— 

The earth’s great face entirely o’er; 

That this gushed up with awful pow’r, 

Some thirty feet or more an hour. 

But where were all those waters then, 

And how did they get back again ? 

And, while themselves were thus all out 
A roaring round the earth about, 

What filled the caverns far below 
From which they must have come, you know? 
And who is wise enough to say 
Where all those waters are to-day? 

Besides all this, I cannot see 
How Noah’s great menagerie, 

When all from out the ark had gone, 

Found anything to feed upon. 

Immersed a year beneath the tide, 

All vegetation must have died ; 

And many months must then have flown 
Ere food sufficient could have grown 
For the herbivori alone; 

Before these could have been supplied 
Great numbers must, of them, have died. 

And then for those that lived on flesh, 

And had to have it sweet and fresh, 


THK DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


181 


No food, of course, could have been found 
In all the desolation round, 

Till years had passed, or months at least, 
And every kind of bird and beast 
That’s used for food had so increased 
That it again a source might be 
Of food for all carnivori. 

A cat there was for every mouse, 

A hawk for every quail and grouse; 

And, hungry quite for dinner then, 

A fox at leist for every hen. 

Would not the mouse, in form of jelly, 
Have slept at once in pussy’s belly? 

The hungry bear, would he have slept, 

Till he outside a hog had crept? 

The lion, too, whose chief delight 
Was serving his own appetite, 

Would lie have thought it fair and right 
To rest at all, by day or night, 

Until his monstrous maw was full 
Of beef from Noah’s onlv bull? 

And what, with hungry Reynard near, 
Would have become of Chanticleer? 

In short, I’d like some priest to tell 
How all these things survived so well. 

Again, some birds and beasts would die 
If kept beneath a temp’rate sky, 

And hence each one of these, with food, 
Must have returned, with certitude, 

To its own land and latitude. 

But how all this was done, you know, 

Is more than anyone can show. 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE, 


And now I’ll close the history 
Of this most sad catastrophe. 

By showing up an awful deed 
Of which one shudders e’en to read; 

A deed which priests declare was done 
By Ham, the Captain’s youngest son. 

The good old Captain used to be 
Quite fond of grog, and frequently 
Imbibed too much, and thus got fight, 
And lay around in wretched plight, 

And showed his breech in broad-daylight 
On one occasion, so I learn, 

He took an over-gen’rous turn 
At his old jug; then lay around, 

Quite loose, of course, upon the ground. 
While yet in this most blissful plight, 
Ham dared, ’tis said, to laugh outright, 
Because the good old man did make 
A very ludicrous mistake. 

He meant to raise his rev’rend head, 

But raised his naked breech instead; 

And while upon his head he sat, 

His breech, of course, stuck up, and that 
Was crowned with his old beaver hat. 
’Twas this mistake, quite sure I am, 

That caused the laughter-loving Ham 
To throw right back his empty pate 
And very loudly cachinnate. 

At this, of course, the Lord’s just ire 
Broke forth like hell itself on fire. 

While Noah thus sat up in state, 

Or thought he did, at any rate, 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 133 

His rising wrath became intense 
When Ham made fun at his expense. 

But though he thought his breech his head, 

And tried to make it speak, ’tis said, 

He failed in what he did intend ; 

Then quickly changing end for end, 

While yet his anger grew still worse, 

He sent for Ham to hear him curse. 

’Tis true he did not curse poor Ham, 

For he had also had a dram, 

And would have made the matter worse 
Had Noah ventured him to curse; 

Hence this poor dotard, drunk and wild, 

Cursed Ham’s defenseless little child; 

And this he did with pow’r so full 
That Canaan’s hair was changed to wool 
E’en then, it seems, he did not slack, 

But cursed the child completely black; 

Then cursed right on at double-quick, 

Until the child’s two lips grew thick; 

And still, not satisfied with that, 

He cursed its nose entirely flat; 

And still he cursed, and made it feel 
Its calf go down to form its heel; 

And, finally, with awful yell, 

He cursed, as all your priests know well, 

Until the child began to smell. 

That hapless child, it doth appear, 

Till then, was fair as any here; 

And no bad smell till then he had, 

But smelled like any other lad. 

Was it not. then, a base affair 






134 


THE DEVIL ; S DEFENSE. 

For Ham to stand in silence there. 

And hear his child cursed all the while 
Till he became a negro vile? 

Ham did not try till ’twas too late, 

To save the child from such a fate; 

But standing off, of course, not far, 

He puffed the while a cheap cigar. 

He did not know that Noah's curse 
Could change the child so much for worse; 
Indeed, besotted much with drink, 

He scarcely anything did think, 

Until he heard it give a yell 
And noticed its new-fangled smell. 

He then exerted all his might 
To change it back again to white; 

To change to hair its fleecy wool, 

To stop its stink so powerful, 

To lessen much its monstrous heel, 

To make its nose and lips genteel; 

He thought if he would backward curse, 
These dreadful things he would reverse; 
He tried, and only made them worse; 

He found that not e’en this poor rule 
Both ways would work to please a fool. 
And now you know, beyond a doubt, 

How negroes first were brought about; 

And this should be a warning, then, 

To those who laugh at drunken men. 
Should you thus laugh, you might, to-day, 
To negroes change in that same way; 

In fact, some men, well known to us, 

Can scarcely keep from changing thus. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE, 


135 


So predisposed are they, we see, 

At least, hereditarily, 

Like Canaan’s colored seed to be, 

That oft their own poscerity— 

With grief I speak of these sad matters— 
Are nothing more than “-m’latters.” 

The only thing that troubles me 
In all this wondrous history, 

Is that I cannot clearly see 
How all of Canaan’s seed could be 
Full negroes, like himself, when he 
No negro wife could then, you know, 

Have had to help him make them so. 

Had Canaan’s wife been colored, too, 

The story then, perhaps, might do ; 

It could not, otherwise, be true; 

From mother white, you may be sure, 

Was never born a negro pure. 

What more befell old Noah’s sons, 

So far as their own hist’ry runs, 

I have but little more to say 
That would, to you, in any way, 

Of real int’rest be to-day. 

We know not what they all were at, 

Except that each of them begat 
As many sons as e’er he could, 

And thought this labor did him good. 

At times in pleasantry, to you, 

I’ve feigned to think this story true; 

But, really, I’ve never heard 
Or read a storv more absurd. 

And vet. vou must be all well crammed 

t/ ' V 








136 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


With faith in this, or all be damned. 

The Sailor Sindbad’s history, 

And Captain Gulliver’s, to me, 

Have better proofs that they are true 
Than many Bible stories do. 

Could I gulp down this monstrous tale 
Of Noah’s flood, then Jonah’s whale, 

And Balaam’s ass, and Samson’s bees, 

And many more such things as these, 

I down could gulp with wondrous ease. 

If men would only dare to think 
And not from fair inquiry shrink, 

They’d soon become entirely free 
From superstitious slavery. 

Vile priestcraft then would cease to be, 

As now, a chain on liberty; 

And all mankind, in truth’s grand light, 
Would learn to think and act aright. 

The nations all would live in peace, 

All useful knowledge would increase, 

All sin and crime, deprived of cause, 

Would cease to burden men with laws. 

The priests, then, all compelled to earn 
An honest living, soon would learn 
More useful work than now they find 
In fixing chains upon the mind. 

Each soul, supplied in every need, 

Would have no use for priest or creed; 

But upward still, with truth in view, 

Would heights attain now reached by few. 

Men still would die, but then this change 
No more would fearful seem or strange; 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


13,7 

The weary then to this would go, 

As now they sink tj sleep, you know. 

From earth would quickly disappear 
The greatest evils now known here, 

Gross ignorance and slavish fear. 

For those who think to cure all ills 
With orthodoxy's patent pills. 

The flood and other tales will do, 

But cannot satisfy the few 

Whose souls, too grand for slav’ry’s chains, 

Are walking now where freedom reigns; 

Are mounting up to higher spheres 
AVhere vistas vast of coming years 
Will still expand before their sight 
To spheres beyond of life and light 


CHAPTER IV. 

Again we’re met, and since ’tis thus, 
I’ll now review the exodus 
Which happened, so we understand, 
When Israel fled from Pharaoh’s land, 
By God’s immediate command. 

Before, however, I proceed, 

I wish to give a moment’s heed 
To quite a multitude of those 
Who came here sworn to be my foes 
But who already clearly see 
That they’ve no chance for victory. 

A large majority of these 
Are shaky now about the kneo^ 





138 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


For ’twas to serve some selfish turn 
They came, and not the truth to learn. 

These, heedless what their cause may be, 

Contend alone for victory ; 

And now, alas! they never more 
Can join the holy rant and roar 
Concerning me, as heretofore; 

For though they yet retain the will 
To harp upon their dogmas still, 

They’d now be forced at every word 
To think how false and how absurd 
Is all their frenzied declamation 
About their hell and God-damnation. 

They’ve heard the truth, but dare not face it, 
For fear they might at last embrace it; 

And that they know would never do, 

With selfish gain alone in view, 

And yet they know their dogmas all 
Before the truth are bound to fall. 

Since, then, ’tis still their firm desire 
To hold their grip on hell and fire, 

From here they should at once retire; 

For should they stay, they’ll cease to be, 

As now, prepared, conveniently, 

To swallow down the Jonah-whales, 

The Balaam-asses, Moses-quails, 

The maids that breed untouched by males, 

And other sim’lar Bible tales, 

Which they must swallow down as true— 

Or make the people think they do— 

Or lose their precious salaries, 

Their popularity, and ease. 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


139 


And many more such things as these. 

Which now the people, whom they please, 

Do freely give, but which you know, 

For truth are never lavished so. 

They serve a God, and serve him well, 

A God of vengeance, hate, and hell, 

Who starting out with Noah’s flood, 

Hath left his trail in human blood; 

And who enjoys no recreation 
Like that of death and devastation, 

And what they’re pleased to call damnation. 
If, then, these shaky-kneed ones still 
Would do this bloody monster’s will, 

And do it, too, devoid of fear, 

The less they gain of knowledge here 
The better far for them ’twill be, 

Since all their hope of victory, 

As I have oft most fully shown, 

Doth lie in ignorance alone. 

Old Jacob, so the story runs, 

Had just a dozen godly sons, 

Who sought them homes, by God’s command, 
With all they had, in Pharoh’s land. 

From seventy persons, so we're told, 

Including both the young and old, 

They soon became by procreation, 

A numberless and mighty nation. 

Yet though the king himself confessed 
That they outnumbered all the rest, 

And stronger were, he made them toil 
As meanest slaves upoD the soil; 

And they submitted thus to be 


uo 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


The vilest slaves in history, 

When they as well could have been free. 

At last the king, in great alarm 
Lest these vile slaves might do some harm, 
Resolved, ’tis said, to check the speed 
With which they then were wont to breed. 
Two mid wives hence received command 
To pass throughout that whole great land 
And slav, of all that Hebrew' band— 

And not in any case to fail— 

Each new born child, if ’twas a male. 

Of course, this gave those famous two 
Enough of such foul work to do, 

Much more than they could well get through. 
Two hundred births, each day, or more, 

And these the whole land scattered o’er, 

Must then have given more, you see, 

Than they could do conveniently. 

Resides all this, we may infer 
That many births would oft occur 
At once, and yet be far apart, \ 

And each demand a midwife’s art; 

And hence ’tis clear to every one 
That no such work was ever done— 
Admitting that ’twas e’er begun— 

By midwives two; and hence doth fail 
Another monstrous Bible tale. 

Besides all this, would parents call 
For midwives-sworn to murder all 
Their new-born boys upon the spot? 

Full well they kn-ow that they would not 
You know that parents everywhere 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


141 


Would strain to hide, with anxious cafe, 
The time when they expected one 
That might turn out to be a son. 

How, then, could two, without a call, 
Have known just when to visit all? 

And would the Hebrews, think you, then 
Have suffered those two monstrous men 
To pass about at their own will 
The infant boys of all to kill? 

Would not a strong and well-armed band 
Have been required, the king’s command 
To execute throughout the land ? 

Would any but an idiot king 
Have e’er commanded such a thing ? 

Is not the tale absurd enough 
To prove it merely empty stuff ? 

At any rate the project failed, 

And Hebrew breeding still prevailed, 

Till thirty hundred thousand souls 
Were found upon the census rolls. 

This called, we find, from every pair, 
Engaged in multiplying there, 

Ten times the number now turned out 
By those who do their best, no doubt 
This fact established, I, for one, 

Would like to know just how ’twas done. 
The plan now used by men, you know, 
For such results would be too slow. 

The Hebrews must have had some way 
Of bleeding fast, unknown to-day— 

Some plan by which each pair, no doubt, 
Could tiirc & hundred children oiit— 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


U2 

Could this perform with less ado 
Than men now make begetting two. 

In this same way, if they but knew it, 

Most men, no douht, would like to do it 

But let this pass, and let us see 

How Moses freed from slavery 

And led away this mighty band 

O'er whom God gave him full command. 

To make this servile host obey, 

And blindly follow him away, 

Some truly wondrous tricks, they say, 

He used before their eyes to play. 

Of course he used these wondrous shows, 

As every Bible reader knows, 

To gull his friends and scare his foes. 

He had each house select a lamb 
One year of age, a healthy ram, 

And ordered them at night to sup 
Upon this ram, and eat him up, 

And make on every Hebrew door 
Three spots of blood, no less, no more. 

G^d meant to go or send that night, 

And kill the first-born child outright, 

In every house where should not be 
Those spots of blood exactly three; 

And Moses ordered all to stay 
In doors until the foil’wing day. 

Three million Hebrews scattered round, 

With flocks and herds, would need much ground ;• 

And then, you know, their enemies 

Could scarce have numbered less than these; 

And hence six million souls we find 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


143 


Of both these people then combined. 
Indeed, some writers do aver 
That full ten million people were 
Within old Egypt’s limits found, 

All scattered o’er her fertile ground. 

The land entire of Egypt, then, 

Could scarce have nourished all these men; 
A part would have been far too small, 

And hence they most have used it all; 
And, giving every family ten, 

Six hundred thousand houses then, 

At least, to shelter great and small, 

Must have been used to shelter all; 

And since the angel had to call 
At every one of these, his flight, 

Performed in less tlion one half night, 

Most wondrous must have been, indeed, 
For unimaginable speed. 

That angel was, as all agree, 

A finite being just like me, 

And could not have been, like the air, 

At one time present everywhere, 

He had to visit, one by one, 

Those homes, till all his work was done. 

He must, to ply his bloody trade, 

Three hundred thousand calls have made, 
And then at least as many more 
To homes which he, of course, passed o’er 
Because of blood upon the door. 

’Tis clear that he, upon that raid, 

For every hour must needs have made 
Two hundred thousand calls or mor^, 


‘V «»* • 

144 


thje devil's defense. 

And stopped, of course, at every door, 

To Took for three fresh spots of gore; 

And that when he had looked around 
And no such spots of blood were found, 

He needs must then without delay, 

Have entered in some one to slay. 

He had, of course, to ascertain, 

By proofs indisputably plain, 

Exactly which ones should be slain 
In every bloodless house he found 
Upon his grand and bloody round. 

All guessing would have been amiss 

In work so horrible as this. 

» ■ ' ! |. 1 

Of course, he looked the children o’er, 

From six to ninety—often more, 

But frequently was still in doubt, 

And could not make the right ones out 

These cases caused him much delay, 

Of course, since each forced him to stay, 

And call the inmates up to show 

On which should fall the fatal blow; 

And these would often stoutly swear 

•/ 

That no first-born was just then there, 

And that they could not tell just where 
Their first-borns were, but if he’d come 
Another time he might find some. 

’Twas very wrong in them to lie 
In that outrageous way, and try 
To have the angel pass them by ; 

But were you placed in just the plight- 
In which they found themselves that night, 
Would you not lie with every breath 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


145 


To save your dearest ones from death? 

When he had found the proper one, 

That angel’s work was quickly done -; 

He finished him with heavy kicks, 

Or crushed his skull with clubs and bricks, 
Or made him breathe a deadly gas 
That caused his life at once to pass. 

Three hundred thousand thus were slain 
With deadly air or mangled brain, 

To scare the king, as well you know, 

And make him let the Hebrews go. 

The persons slain had never done 
The slightest wrong to anyone; 

And yet, for murd’ring them all thus, 

God should be praised, they say, by us; 
But why he should, I cannot see, 

Since such an act, if done by me, 

Would call forth deepest execration 
From all good men of every nation. 

Do men speak truly when they say 
They love this blood-stained God to-day? 
Can truly good men ever be 
With such to. fiend in sympathy? 

Is love the thing, or is it fear 
That makes so many men appear 
To worship him ? Is it not hell 
That makes so many yelp and yell 
About his “goodness,” which, they know, 
He never yet hath deigned to show, 

Except in killing people so, 

Or else in bringing other forms 
Of evil, pestilences, storms, 


14fl 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


And every other ill that can 
On earth afflict poor mortal man? 

Most wondrous goodness!” blood and thunder! 
Yet, after all, ’tis little wonder 
That they should thus with blarney try 
Their vengeful God to pacify. 

If men could only know how well 
The people all get on in hell, 

IIow much more real liberty 
Is there enjoyed than saints do see 
Shut up in Paradise, they’d dare 
To be more truthful everywhere, 

E’en at the risk of going there; 

They then to me would humbly bow, 

To whom their hearts turn even now. 

That some serve God from fear, ’tis plain, 

While others serve from hope of gain, 

And not from love, as they maintain. 

Still others serve, it seems to me, 

Alone for popularity; 

While many others merely do it 
Because their priests have put them to it; 
Because unblessed with minds, you know, 

Like mere machines, they’re made to go. 

But all these worshipers w r ould be 
Extremely glad to change, you see, 

And give their homage all to me, 

If only once it could be shown 
That I possessed, and I alone, 

The power to deal with every one, 

That lives and moves beneath the sun. 

According to the deeds he’s done; 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


147 


That I could cause all those to dwell. 
Who pleased me not, in flames of hell; 
That I alone had power to give 
All things for which men pray and live; 
That I alone could grant the prize 
Of fadeless joys beyond the skies; 

That God, in utter helplessness, 

Had lost all power to give or bless; 
These servile hosts would instantly 
Forsake his fallen cause, and be 
At once true worshipers of me. 

For love alone, ’tis very plain, 

To worship him they'd not remain 
When they’d no more a hope of gain. 

God knows all this, and, just for spite, 
Sends men to me as my own right, 

And swears that he doth take delight . 
In doing this—that he doth hate 
Their silly sycophantic prate— 

Their hypocritic rant and roar, 

And that he'll punish them the more 
For daring thus at him to bawl, 

When love for him they've none at all 

V 

But I digress, and must go baek 
To that death angel’s bloody track, 

On which so many guiltless men 
In death’s embrace, lay stiff ’ning then. 

At once the silent midnight air 
Was pierced by shrieks of grief, despair* 
Of nameless horror everywhere. 

From Egypt’s homes all joy had fled, 
For every house had some one dead; 


THE DEVILS l)kFLXSK. 

And God did all these murders then 
To win applause, ’tis said, from men, 

By scaring poor old Pharaoh so 
That lie would let the Hebrews go. 

’Twas after twelve o’clock at night 
When Pharaoh learned, in great affright, 
That, over all his kingdom spread, 

There reigned a nameless, horrid dread, 
Because each house had some one dead. 
He then had Moses come in haste, 

And ordered him no time to waste, 

But lead his hosts at once away 

That God his murd’rous hand might stay. 

’Twas after one o’clock, no doubt, 

When Moses went from Pharaoh out; 

And yet, if I have read aright, 

He led his hosts away that night 
But could, I ask, could this be so? 

All common sense doth answer no! 

E'en twenty thousand well-trained men, 
Aroused so late as they were then, 

Though all encamped upon the ground, 
And roused at once by bugle sound, 

Could scarce be gotten under way 
Before the dawn of coming day. 

To put a million on the move 

Two days ’twould take, as I could prove, 

Since every soldier knows ’tis true, 

As I now state it unto you. 

But here we find a mighty hand, 

Three million strong, throughout the land 
Dispersed at midnight, all called in 


TH£ DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

From distant homes, where long they’d been, 
And organized, and all marched out, 

In just three hours or thereabout. 

Save some who did night vigils keep, 
Those mighty hosts were all asleep ; 
lienee Moses sent swift runners round, 
Wherever Hebrews might be found, 
Throughout all Egypt’s utmost bound, 

To rouse them up without delay, 

And have them marching ere ’twas day. 

To rouse the runners he went round, 

And Aaron, too, till they had found 
Three thousand very active men 
To whom they gave strict orders then 
To hasten all the country o'er 
Till each had warned a thousand more. 

It took some time for each to know 
To just what regions he should go, 

And just what persons he should call 
That notice quick might reach them alL 
At least three thousand orders, then, 

Were written out by those two men, 

Or spoken o’er so frequently 
That every runner’s memory 
Was rendered sure, and hence ’twas two 
O'clock, at least, when they got through. 

Those runners, then, well was their neeci, 
Dashed forth at once with reckless speed, 
And full one hundred miles an hour— 

A Hebrew’s utmost running powder— 

They made until their task was done 
And they had warned in every one. 


150 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE* 


There then arose such horrid din 
As hell itself might glory in, 

As some rushed forth for flocks and herds, 
And some, in loud, excited words, 

Gave strangest orders here and there, 

While none were list’ning anywhere. 

Some ran with cries and pit’ous moans 
To dig up dead men’s rotted bones, 

Whiie others filled great troughs with dough 
And others still ran to and fro, 

Bereft of sense by sad affright, 

And waked with screams that awful night 
Some bundled up their clothes to start, 
While others ran, with prudent heart, 

To all their neighbors, young and old, 

And robbed them all, so we are told, 

Of costly garments, silver, gold, 

And other precious things which they 
As godly loot could bear away. 

In doing this, they made no blunder, 

Since God instructed them to plunder 
Their guests and neighbors all like thunder. 

Four hundred women giving birth 
To little strangers here on earth, 

Were forced, of course, to stop, you know, 
And gather up their duds and go. 

Four hundred, just the day before, 

Had given birth to one or more, 

And were, of course, quite weak and sorr * 
But, when this wondrous march began, 
These all jumped up at once and ran. 

Two hundred had that day expired. 


161 


THE DEYIL’3 DEFENSE. 

And thousands more "were sick and tired; 
But then the sick, the dying, all 
Awaited not a second call, 

But rose and ran with wondrous speed, 

A hundred miles an hour, indeed. 

The dead, of course, were borne away, 

Or left to rot just where they lay; 

Since every one had utmost need 
For all his time, for all his speed, 

And could not stop a moment then 
To care for dead or dying men; 

And now you’ll doubtless all agree 
The time of night was after three. 

Great heaps of clothes some had to bear, 
And some had sacks of babies there, 

While others carried bones, you know, 

And others, still, great troughs of dough. 
Some rushed their countless herds and flocks 
O’er mountain streams and rugged rocks, 
With such enormous speed that night, 

That they outstripped the eagle’s flight; 
While many more with loads of flour 
Kept pace—a hundred miles an hour—- 
All ears were stunned, such awful din 
Those millions made thus rushing in. 

The noise, indeed, was louder far 
Than e’er the loudest thunders ar>. 

It seemed as if some mighty world 
Had ’gainst the earth been wildly hurled; 

So much she shook from shore to shore, 
Beneath that still increasing roar, 

And then the hour was nearly four. 




THE DEVIL’S DEFERS 


One thing I almost did forget, 

Deserves a passing notice yet. 

The night so densely dark was then, 

That lights were borne by all the men; 

And these, like swiftest meteors, flashed, 

As wildly on their bearers dashed; 

And, when united, all they say, 

Changed darkest night to brightest dajh 
At last, amidst this awful din, 

The hindmost ones came streaking in. 

And, organized in fine array, 

All marched from Egypt ere ’twas day. 

Oh ! such a march I The old, the youhg, 
Along that desert road were strung; 

While everywhere the way was lined 
With sick and maimed, and halt and blind. 
The flocks and herds, three million strong, 
Two miles a minute rushed along, 

Thus raising dust in dreadful clouds, 

Which swept among the struggling crowds, 
Till many died, as needs they must, 

'Midst clouds, like those, of sand and dust 
Some women sank in child-birth pain, 
Upon the burning, sandy plain; 

But these, till all their strength was gone, 
Were roused again and made go on. 

Thus roused again, they onward pressed, 
But. when they long had done their best, 
Their eyes grew wild, their breath grew dry, 
And down they sank, of course, to die. 
Beside them there upon the ground, 

Their new-born babes were often found 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE: 

Alive or dead all scattered round. 

In some, life feebly flickered on, 

Until the crowds had passed and gone, 
And then beneath the burning skies, 

Alone they closed their weary eyes; 

And there, upon the selfsame spot, 

Their bodies all were left to rot. 

Upon that dreadful desert route 
Their water soon, of course, gave out; 

Then heat intense and thirst did slay 
Some twenty thousands that first day. 

Their cattle, too, could find no grass, 

Upon the way they had to pass, 

And ’twas a melancholy view 
To see good cattle dying too. 

Thrice ten square miles, upon the way, 

Of richest pastures, every day, 

Would scarce bave been enough, you know 
E’en had their march been very slow. 

And then, to serve as camping-ground 
For all his host, old Moses found, 

.Required a space full twelve miles round. 

Ten men abreast, all bearing loads, 

Can scarcely march on common roads; 

Rut let’s say thirty, great and small, 

Of people, cattle, sheep, and all; 

And then that mass six millions strong, 

Two hundred miles and more was long; 

And ere the rear could start each day, 

The front—let priests say what they may— 
Was bound to march that far away; 

And march they did, without a doubt, 


iol THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

***■'»• 

Or rather, shot themselves right out, 

Two hundred miles, in order fine, 

Of men, and women, sheep, and kine, 

And lit, of course, in proper line. 

When they all reached the sea at last, 
Their greatest suff’rings were all past; 
Since God then caused east winds to blow, 
Which did divide the waters so 
That they stood up, on either hand, 

As walls, to that God-chosen band. 

And yet how east winds could divide, 

And make them stand on either side, 

I must confess, is still to me 
A most perplexing mystery. 

They crossed, it seems, a narrow end 
Of that great sea where it doth trend 
Northwesterly, and where, you know, 

East winds are bound, whene’er they blow. 
To make the tide still deeper flow. 

A northwest wind is all the one 
That could this wondrous work have done 
And even then, there could not stand 
A wat’ry wall, on either hand. 

It therefore must have been the case 
That God, at night, in such a place, 

Did not exactly understand 

The full extent of his command. , 

He knew just what he wanted done, 

And, when he called for winds, that one 
Came forth which could serve him the best, 
And blew all night from north of west 

The waters, thus all driven back, 


155 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

Left there a broad and miry track 
O’er which old Moses led his band, 

As you’ve been taught, upon dry land 
They crossed the sea, it seems, at night, 
And reached the other side all right, 

Save thirty thousand, some say more, 

Who never reached the farther shore. 

Stuck fast in mud that came waist high, 
These wretches all were left to die; 

For though they loudly called for aid, 

The stronger ones were all afraid 
That they would have enough to do 
To get themselves and loot all through. 

Besides all these, some sheep, they say, 
Were lost in this same cruel way ; 

And this grieved Moses much, ’tis said, 
Since nearly all were thoroughbred 
Some cattle also perished there, 

But Moses had no time to spare 
To mourn for these, since even then, 

The king, with all his warlike men, 

Had left behind the other shore, 

And on their trail was passing o’er. 

When morning dawned, these all were seen, 
Though sev’ral miles still lay between; 

In front, the king, with battle-cry, 

II is flashing blade was waving high, 

While close behind, with fearful splash, 

His mounted men did wildly dash. 

Close after these / in dread array, 

Which made the Hebrews quake, they say, 
And seize their loot to run away, 


THI? DEViL‘3 DEFENCE. 



Advanced what was, or seemed to be, 

A park of light artillery. 

The Hebrews saw all this, ’tis said, 

And would have turned at once and fled, 
But while their foes were in the trough 
Of that great sea, the wheels came off 
From caisson, cannon carriage, all, 

And let these vehicles all fall. 

This caused, alas! so much delay 
That while they still were on the way, 
And close behind their trembling prey, 
They all were caught at once and died 
Beneath the sea’s advancing tide. 

The cause of this catastrophe 
To some may seem a mystery; 

But God, it seems, had gone about, 

And stolen all their linch-pins out; 

And this he did without a doubt, 

With vilest treachery in view, 


Since crippled thus, as well he knew, 
Those vehicles could ne’er get through 
And now it doth, indeed, seem fair 
That God’s strange interference there 
Should win him praise from every Jew 
Whose father thus was aided through. 
But what of all that he did then 
Doth call for praise from other men? 

If aiding Jews should make them bless 
And praise his acts with thankfulness, 
What should those do against whom he 
Gave that same aid so treach’rously ? 


Since their affairs were all made worse 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 167 

By what he did, should they not curse ? 

’Twas not my war, and hence, to me, 

No cause to curse, of course, can be; 

Nor yet to praise, since I, like you, 

Will praise no act I’d scorn to do. 

The Hebrews praised—why should they not? 
Their God, for all the help they got; 

Praised him who then, as may be shown, 

Was God of them, and them alone. 

Had he been God of all mankind, 

Do you believe that we should find 
One tribe alone within his care, 

As were the Hebrews then and there? 

Would nature’s God build up one nation 
By bringing blood and desolation 
On all the rest, as ’tis too true 
This Jewish God was wont to do ? 

Would that which rules the universe 
Help vile old drunken men to curse, 

And thus make their own children worse? 
Would it assist one wicked brother 
By grossest fraud to rob another ? 

Would it choose one unborn as yet 
To be its own especial pet? 

And would it heap up wrath and scorn 
For that one’s brother still unborn? 

Would nature’s God have men, I pray, 

With borrowed goods to run away ? 

And do you think that we would find 
It showing some one its behind? 

If not, is it not rather odd 
To claim that it’s the selfsame God 


158 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


That did these things, and others, too, 

Much worse, if Bible tales be true? 

The Hebrew God, you clearly see, 

Was tutelar divinity 
To them alone, and only they 
Are bound to worship him to-day. 

As well you know, each nation then 
Had gods with passions like its men; 

In fact, all gods of every kind 

Were once conceived in some man’s mind. 

No God there is, or ever was, 

Of whom some man was not the cause; 
And since effects must always be 
Just like their causes, you can see 
Why gods, got up on any plan. 

In some respects resemble man. 

When men create their deities 
They simply body forth in these 
Their own conceptions, high or low, 

And these the gods do always show. 
Describe to me a God, and then 
I’ll tell you just what kind of men 
Invented him ; for he’ll contain 
Their qualities of heart and brain. 

A savage tribe, you’ll always see 
Adore some savage deity ; 

And you will find it strictly true 
That Jews, for God, adored a Jew. 

No one will dare dispute that he 
Was always full of jealousy, 

' Of greediness and bigotry, 

Of vengeance, lust and blood and thunder. 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


159 


✓ 


And that he put whole nations under 
To get their lands and other plunder. 

He had h is pets rejoice, you see, 

In what is c illed polygamy, 

And pardoned oft some hardened thief 
For one good smell of roasted beef. 

A God with passions such as these 
Could not have failed the Jews to please; 

In fact, it long hath been conceded 
That he was just the God they needed. 
Indeed, describe a people true, 

And I’ll describe at once to you 
The attributes of every kind 
Which they to God will have assigned. 

When Pharoh’s host had all “ gone in ” 
The Hebrews hired a violin, 

And had a dance upon the green 
Which all good Christians should have seen; 
And while they danced old Moses sung, 
“Just go it, boys, while you are young; 

For God hath cast our foes, you know, 

All down where now the billows flow.” 

It would have made your preachers stare 
To see just how they went it there; 

To hear just how old Moses sang, 

Until the hills and valleys rang, 

To cheer the hearts of his “chebang.” 

If priests would now all learn to dance, 
They’d give to health a better chance, 

And do more good than when they pray, 
And, more than this, they’d make it pay. 

The dancing done, they all departed. 


160 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

And were awhile quite merry hearted, 
But when their matters all grew worse, 
With one accord they stopped to curse. 

Of all the ills that do abound 
I know of none that could be found 
Of which the tendency is worse, 

To cause e’en holy men to curse, 

Than hunger is; and this, combined 
With other ills of any kind, 

Will cause most men—quite sure I am— 
To think, if not to say “ God damn I” 
Well, this was just the thing, they say, 
That made the Hebrews curse that day; 
For they had ventured too far out, 

From any known and traveled route, 

And having used up their supply 
Of food, they raised a hue and cry 
Against old Moses, who, they said, 

Wished them to die for want of bread* 

H. , j, . ■ , •. t •: • ' • 1 .!-iV : 

The water, too, was scarce and bad, 

And lager beer could not be had, 

And none but priests could beg or buy 
A gen’rous dram of good “old rye.” 

No wonder, then, they ceased to joke, 

And sat around to curse and smoke; 

No wonder they were “mad as thunder,” 
And talked of putting Moses under 
For leading them out there to die 
Beneath that burning desert sky. 

But God’s great goodness did .not fail, 
And bread.came tumbling down like hail; 
But who it.was..awav up there, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 161 

That threw it down thus through the air, 

I do not know, but all agree 
That’twas most wonderful to see, 

And that it was, undoubtedly, 

From some celestial bakery. 

For forty years this food did fall, 

In quantities enough for all, 

Until that holy Hebrew band 

Had safely reached the promised land; 

And some quite learned men are met 
Who say that some there falleth yet 
For my own part, I do not care 
How bread was made thus high in air; 

I do, however, wish to know 
Why God such goodness doth not show 
To hungry men in our own day 
Who righteous are, perhaps, as they 
For whom this bread was then prepared, 

And who on it so richly fared. 

If he’s indeed the God of all, 

Why doth he suffer some to fall 
And die of want, when full supply 
Could thus be sent from up on high ? 

It seemeth strange that he should choose 
A set of slavish, thievish Jews, 

And give them bread to eat and waste. 

And give no other one a taste. 

Unfair this is, you all do know, 

And ’tis another proof to show, 

What elsewhere I have said, that he 
Was tutelar divinitv 

«s 

To them alone, and that you all 


let 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENS 


Might just as well on him not call. 

If you must have, like all the rest, 

A god to serve, select the best; 

Do not, I beg of you, e’er choose 
Just such a God as did the Jews ; 

Choose one less full of vengeful ire, 

Of jealousy, of hell, and fire; 

One who will not, from “ cussedness,” 
Damn twenty times as much as bless; 
But one whom you may always find 
The equal God of all mankind, 

On whom all men may freely call, 

And who will need no priests at all; 

One who will not bless one small nation, 
And damn the rest of all creation; 

A God whose will to all is shown, 

And not to well-paid priests alone; 

In short, let Nature henceforth be 
Your universal deity*. 

But if you cannot all agree 
To this, then make a god of me; 

Or see if you cannot invent 
A God less full of devilment 
When God had thus, from out the sky, 
Sent down good bread in full supply, 

The Hebrews still sat round and cursed, 
Because of their increasing thirst 
As I have said, they had no beer, 

And water soon did disappear; 

But Moses, always up to tricks, 

Soon got them out of that sad fix. 

Well skilled he was as u water witch,” 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


163 


And hence he took his hazel switch, 

And walked till he a spot had found 
Where waters flowed close under ground. 

This spot he marked with wondrous care, 

And set strong men to digging there. 

To him this was a lucky blow, 

For waters forth did quickly flow, 

And overspread the ground below. 

Old Moses near that spot had spent 
Some foity years in banishment 
And, since he’d oft been there before, 

He knew this wondrous place of yore. 

He knew just where streams could be found, 
And made to flow from underground ; 

And hence his hosts he’d thither brought, 

To have this very wonder wrought. 

And when ’twas wrought—good reason why—- 
The common people were not by; 

And, though the elders knew it well, 

’Twas not their interest to tell 

Just how ’twas done ; and hence ’twas thought, 

And, afterwards, was boldly taught 

That then a miracle was wrought. 

Such fountains have, quite oft since then, 

Been found by less pretentious men ; 

But who e’er knew one gentle knock 
To bring a river from a rock, 

As many priests do now declare 
That Moses did, right then and there? 

Some men have thought there was a stream, 
Of which the Hebrews did not dream, 

Alreadv there, and which was known 

v 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


164 


To Moses then, to him alone. 

They hold that he did then advance, 
Apparently, of course, by chance, 

To some point where no one could see 
The waters, which immediately 
Below him were, then gave a knock, 

In sight of all, upon the rock, 

Then had his hosts draw near the place 
To see the floods about its base. 

To my own mind this theory 
Doth more like truth appear to be 
Than doth the Bible history, 

That hath old Moses give a knock 
With wooden rod upon a rock, 

And thus cause waters forth to flow 
And fill the channels all below. 

Some Bible critics now declare 
That that same rock still lieth there^ 

A loose and tumbling granite block, 
Detached from every other rock 
In such a \*ay, as they do show, 

That waters could not through it flow 
From any other place, and, hence 
They promptly draw the inference 
That waters were created there, 

And did not come from anywhere. 

A cavity, they also show, 

Within that rock, from which they know— 
Or say they know—the floods did then 
Gush out in sight of all those men. 

If God supplied those people thus. 

Why doth he ne’er do so to us? 


the devil’s defense. 


166 


Why doth he now let good men die 
Of thirst, before his very eye, 

And yet no effort make at all 
To save them when on him they call? 
Why should he save the grumblings Jews 
And aid to others all refuse? 

The only valid reason is 

That none but Jews were ever his. 

Besides the need they had for bread, 
And water, too, in lager’s stead, 

Those doubting Jews, so I have read, 

Had need that God should dailv show 
Some wondrous trick to make them know 
That he was God, and then the half 
Of them or more preferred a calf. 

And yet, how could they have preferred it, 
If God, as priests have e’er averred it, 

Did then perform, in very deed, 

The wondrous tricks of which we read? 
Can any man believe that they 
Beheld those tricks, then turned away 
To serve a calf the selfsame day? 

And, if God did convince them thus, 

Why doth he not try tricks on us? 

Do doubting men not need to-day 
Proofs just as strong as then did they? 

And if it be a deadly sin 
To doubt, why doth he not pitch in 
And try, at least, our faith to win, 

By doing something very odd 
To make us sure that he’s a God? 

Let him with walking stick divide 


106 THE devil’s DEFENSE, 

The Mississippi's turbid tide. 

Or cause east winds so strong to blow 
Upon the Gulf of Mexico 
That all its floods shall rise and stand 
Like mighty walls on either hand; 

Then make great loaves of good light bread 
Come tumbling down from over head; 

Then let him take a hazel stick 

And bring bv some most wondrous trick 

A river vast from out a brick, 

And men would then be surer, far, 

That he's a God than now they are. 

I would not ask that he should show 
Quite all the tricks which, well you know, 
’Tis said he showed long, long ago. 

Because 1 think ’twould not be nice, 

I never would give my advice 
To have the dust all changed to lice. 

I would not have him even make 
A snake a stick, or stick a snake; 

Nor would I have an ass to talk, 

Or men long dead rise up and walk, 

I would not ask a virgin maid 
To bear a child without the aid 
Of any man ; I’d be afraid 
To ask so much ; nor would I try 
To have a cow three times to die. 

I would not have some trifling fault 
Change any woman into salt; 

Nor would I ask great showers of quails, 
Nor clergymen inside of whales. 

I would not have one man alone, 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


167 


With nothing but an ass’s bone, 

A thousand valiant men to slay, 

As Samson did for fun, they say; 

Nor have him slay three thousand more 
By tipping some great temple o’er. 

I would not ask to have a swine 
Filled full of relatives of mine; 

Nor have a coach-and-four to fly, 

Careering upward through the sky. 

Of these and more there’d be no need, 

But should the first one not succeed, 

He should, of course, try others on, 

Till all our damning doubts were gone. 

Most men are now in such a fix 
That nothing can save them but tricks. 

If, then, the Lord, indeed, doth know them, 
Why does he not, in mercy, show them? 

Perhaps the Lord sincerely thought 
That he such miracles had wrought 
As would permit no doubt to be 
Concerning his divinity. 

But he did not well understand 
The hearts of that his chosen band; 

For while in that same wilderness 
They turned away with eagerness, 
Forgetting all that he had done, 

And thinking that of gods they’d none, 

And had old Aaron make them one; 

And this they served with greatest vim, 

A golden calf, instead of him. 

The causes which brought this about 
Should now be clearly pointed out; 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE, 

And then you all can choose with ease 
Between these rival deities. 

The Hebrews had their camping-ground. 
Mount Sinai’s base quite near around ; 

And since they were as simple men 
As could have well been scared up then, 

Since superstition held full sway 
O’er them as o’er some men to-day, 

And since they’d lived boneath a sky 
Where rain-clouds never meet the eye, 

They looked on them, of course, with wonder, 
And when they heard deep peals of thunde; 
They quaked lest all should go right under. 
They thought the clouds were fiery smoke, 
The thunder, God himself that spoke; 

And yet such scenes do oft occur 
In lands like that where they then were. 

Of course, you’re all full well aware 
That vapors held in heated air 
Cannot be seen, and that no rain 
A burning desert can obtain; 

Since vapors there cannot at all 
Condense to let their waters fall. 

But when the heated winds have passed 
The burning plains and reached at last 
Some lofty mountain's cooler air, 

The vapors, all condensing there, 

In form of clouds do then appear 
Just like the ones oft mentioned here. 

’Tis known so well why this is so 
That time I need not take to show; 

But why the clouds appeared to spread, 


THE 1>EV1L 3 DEFENSE. 


m 

And stay around the mountain’s head, 

For explanation seems to call, 

Since ’tis not understood by all. 

’Twas simply this, there was a sphere, 

In which alone clouds could appear, 

Surrounding that great mountain’s head, 

Just where those clouds seemed then to spread. 
The vapors all, ere reaching there, 

Were borne unseen in heated air; 

But, passing through that cooler sphere, 

Were all condensed and made appear 
In form of clouds, till they’d passed o’er 
The mountain’s top, and reached once inort 
The plains beyond, when, as before, 

The heat caused them to disappear 
And leave the sky entirely clear. 

’Twas not the same cloud, then, that spread 
And hung thus round the mountain’s head ; 
’Twas all the vapors brought to view 
Just while they passed that one spot through 
As smallest objects meet the sight 
While passing through a beam of light; 

The particles we see do not, 

Of course, remain in that one spot; 

But since there is a constant stream, 

All passing through that sunlight beam, 

A cloud of dust doth seem to be 
In that same spot, continually, 

Although ’tis changing constantly. 

That mountain now is known to be 
Between two arms of that great s> 

Beyond which deserts are, you ki. 



THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


O’er which hot winds do often blow, 

And these, in passing o’er the sea, 

Absorb its waters rapidly. 

These vapors reach the mountain’s top, 
And there, condensed, do seem to stop, 
Although in fact they soon are gone, 
Keplaced by others coming on; 

And thus for hours, as I have said, 

The selfsame cloud doth seem to spread, 
All motionless, around the head 
Of that great mountain, forming there, 
Within that sphere of cooler air, 

The smoke that did the Hebrews scare. 

Those people, knowing not the cause 
Of this, could not tell what it was; 

And Moses, who had oft been there, 
Believed the time was very fair, 

While he could these poor people scare, 
With selfish ends of course in view, 

To work a miracle or two. 

He therefore “ solemned*up ” his face, 
Placed double guards along the base, 

To keep the people from the place; 

For well he knew that every one, 

Should they find out just what was done, 
Would turn his miracles to fun. 

Of course his tricks were known to some, 
But these were paid to keep them mum; 
Indeed, it did these leaders good 
To gull the people all they could. 

The guards, of course, were chosen men, 
All armed with good breech-loaders then. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


171 


And ordered were to shoot down all 
Who did not halt at their first call. 

Besides these guards there were three more, 
Who had been sent the night before— 

Each one a skilful bugle blower— 

And who, concealed from all the crowd, 
Were told to blow “exceeding loud,” 

When Moses should a signal show 
To guide them all just when to blow. 

Old Moses had good cause to bless 
His lucky stars for his success, 

But God appeared in quite a stew 
For fear the people might break through, 
And get of him too near a view ; 

And lest he might, in self defense, 

Be forced to hurl tham headlong hence; 

At any rate, old Moses said it, 

And tried to make the Hebrews dread it 

But they, of course, soon came to know 
That what had frightened them all so 
Appeared as common things to all 
Who lived where rain was wont to falL 
They came at their own scare to laugh, 
Then all threw in and made a calf 
And worshiped it the whole day long 
With feast, and dance, and merry song, 

To show old Moses what they thought 
Of all the miracles he’d wrought. 

Old Moses, then, the Bible states, 

Was holding frequent tete-a-tetes 
With God, upon the mountain’s brow, 

And absent was with him there now. 


THE DEVILS DEFES3E. 


Kor forty days, or thereabout, 

These two had thus been camping out, 

While God was spending day and night 
In teaching Moses how to write. 

But, when they heard the noise below, 

The Lord, alarmed, had Moses go 
To turn away the people’s heart 
Before his rival got a start 
Old Moses hastened down alone, 

And with him took two plates of stone, 

On which the Lord, with greatest care, 

Had written laws for him while there. 

But when he heard the joyful shout 
Of those who thronged the calf about, 

He thought a most terrific oath, 

Then dropped the plates and broke thetfc both. 
He took the calf, your Bibles say, 

And burned it up without delay, 

Then mixed its ashes—do you think?— 

With all the people’s daily drink. 

This latter part, howe’er, you know, 

Is false, for gold could never go 
To ashes, nor be mixed with drink, 

Its weight so great would make it sink ; 

Old Moses simply kept the gold— 

No matter what you’ve all been told— 

And he and Aaron, half and half. 

Divided that most precious calf. 

He would have been a greater fool 
Than any dunce at any school, 

Had heburned up, as you’ve been told, 

So large a lump of purest gold. 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


173 


indeed, before those hosts did start 
From Egypt he had set his heart 
Upon the countless sums of gold 
All which, as you’ve been fully told, 

From friends and guests he had them borrow, 
Then carry off upon the morrow. 

He fully meant those hosts to “ euchre” 

Soon out of all that “filthv lucre:” 

j • 

lie never would have bad them take it 
Had he not meant his own to make it 
lie therefore planned to have them sin 
By throwing all that same gold in 
To make a calf which he with ease, £ 

In seeming anger, then could seize, 

And confiscate as he might please 
In all of this he had the aid 
Of Aaron, who was well repaid, 

By being made a partner full 
In all the gold of that young bull. 

To grind to powder such a calf, 

And then, as if ’twere light as chaff, 

To strew it “on” the people’s drink, 

In such a form that ’twould not sink, 

And could not be by them “panned out,” 
Was quite a wondrous feat, no doubt; 

At any rate it makes this tale 
A match for that of Jonah’s whale. 

But fancy did a wondrous thing, 

In this affair, which I will bring 
To notice now, that you may see 
How ’tis that oft, mysteriously, 

From some effect upon the mind, 


174 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


New traits do come to human kind. 

Those Hebrews then were gravely told 
By those two brother swindlers bold, 

That all the water held some gold ; 

Hence they, of course, of gold did think 
Whenever they had need to drink; 

And though no gold was there, the thought 
Of it, so oft indulged, soon wrought 
In them a morbid thirst for gold, 

So very great, as I’ve been told, 

That, even now, they often sell 
Their souls for gold and go to hell. 

Old Moses thought ’twould now be wise 
To butcher thousands by surprise, 

And thus inspire such consternation 
As would prevent investigation 
Of this foul ealfish speculation. 

No sooner was this thought than done, 

And many a father slew his son ; 

And thousands more, it doth appear, 

Were slain by their own brothers dear. 

Supplied with gold enough, you know, 
Old Mose now wished to see a show ; 

He hence devised a fine new farce 

In which the Lord should show his-^ 

To rnaice this work, so runs the story, 

He humbly asked to see God’s glory; 

And God agreed, that very day, 

To show his-in which it lay. 

It pleased old Moses much to know 
That he soon should see this show, 

For he had oft been greatly vexed 




X76 


- THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

To know just how the Gods were sexed; 

And here would be a chance, no doubt, 

To find the sex of this God out 
But Moses failed, to his surprise, 

For God caused him to hide his eyes, 

Until all parts had fully passed, 

Except the show which was the last 
It grieved old Mose exceedingly 
Because he could not clearly see 
Just what the Lord’s true sex might be. 

Of course he saw the Lord’s behind, 

And that, in part, consoled his mind; 

But never more would he engage 
To put this farce upon the stage. 

We’ll notice next some Bible tales 
About a wondrous shower of quails 
That fell, ’tis said, to furnish food 
To all that Hebrew multitude. 

The winds brought these from out the sea— 
A wondrous place for quails to be— 

And threw them down promiscuously, 

44 Two cubits” deep, around the camp, 

On every side, a full day’s tramp. 

They must have lain, at any rate, 

As you may quickly calculate, 

Three feet eight inches deep, all o’er 
A square some sixty miles or more 
On every side ; and hence at least 
Two cubic miles, for one grand feast, 

Of wondrous sea-born quails, we see 
Provided almost instantly. 

And since the winds brought these all there, 


176 




THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 

And dropped them down exactly where 
The Hebrews were, is’t not quite fair 
To hold that other birds would be 
Involved in that catastrophe ; 

Those many birds, especially, 

That do, indeed, thus haunt the sea? 

Some one who doth believe such tales 
Should show how winds could gather quail* 
And nothing else; we then would try 
To gulp this tale immediate-lie. 

A desert land that was, you know. 

Where fervent heat doth always glow, 

And where such mass of quails all dead 
Would soon some fearful plague have spread, 
And swept in eighty hours, at most, 

From off the earth, that Hebrew host 
Besides all this, we also find 
Those Hebrews so to quails inclined 
That they laid in of them a store 
Of forty barrels each, or more. 

All these, of course, they had to dry, 

Spread out beneath that desert sky; 

But guess I cannot how they found 
For this enough of vacant ground, 

Since all the ground was covered o’er 
Some three feet deep with quails befora 
There’s also one more thing I’d fain 
Have some wise Bibleite explain: 

’Tis said those Hebrews all took flesh 
From off those quails, still sweet and fresh, 
“Between their teeth,” but not e’en one 
Had chewed this flesh, or e’en begun 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE 


177 


To chew, ere God’s terrific ire 
Broke forth like hell itself on fire, 

And caused great multitudes, they say, 

To die on that grand festive day, 

With mouths quite full of unchewed mei 
Which they had fondly hoped to eat. 

That God should kill the people thus 
No wonder doth occasion us; 

Like him it was to do such thing, 

Hence there’s no cause for wondering. 

The thing that I would understand 
Is, how the mouths of all that band 
Could all at once wide open fly, 

As quick as you could bat your eye, 

To take in meat; yet this was done; 

Since flesh was found in every one, 

Which had been chewed, ’tia said, by none; 
And had e’en one begun to chew, 

This wondrous tale would not be true. 

Three million mouths flew open wide, 

And quail meat, roasted, broiled, or fried, 
Poured into them in one great tide, 

As if they’d all been one great door, 

And not three million mouths or more. 

! Twas poured in thus, but ere they’d chewed it, 
God cursed them so they all outspewed it; 
Three million mouths gave one great puff, 

And out flew all that cursed stuff. 

This monstrous tale, of course, will do 
For priests to tell, but is it true? ' 

A few more words, and I will close 
The hist’ry strange of meek old Mose 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

Who led the Hebrews round about 
Until the Lord made him “peg out” 

When once he’d seen the happy land, 
Reserved for all his mighty band, 

He died at once—died all alone, 

Without a grumble, grunt, or groan; 
Reported his own obsequies, 

Dug his own grave at his own ease, 
Ensconced himself, then, cold and grim, 

So pulled the hole in after him 

That no man could, though he should try it, 

Find out the spot where Mose doth lie it. 

To read of him doth make me sad, 

Some many things he did were bad: 

Indeed, ’t won Id be quite hard to find 
More horrid deeds of any kind, 

In all the world’s great history, 

Than he committed frequently; 

Than he committed when he slew 
The old. the young, the infants, too, 

In all the wars that he went through; 

Than he committed when, for gain, 
lie had three thousand men all slain, 

Most brutally, as doth appear, 

By their own friends and kindred dear. 
These deeds, of course, I must condemn, 
Though Mose the meek committed them; 
And yet, his pluck I’ve oft admired, 

And energy that never tired. 

Some laws he made quite wise and good, 
Which should be better understood; 

While others, horribly unjust, 




THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

Should slumber, like himself, in du9k 
A few, indeed, were too absurd 
To call for e'en a passing word; 

And yet, to show the inspiration 
That called forth Mose’s legislation, 

I’ll name one law, oft much admired, 
Which must have been of God inspired. 
It says that when two men do fight, 

No matter which of them be right, 

And either’s wife, with valiant heart, 
Shall seize the other’s secret part, 

And jerk him so thereby about 
That lie shall “ holler ’naff,’ ’’ right out, 
The hand of that brave wife is fated, 

And must, at once, be amputated. 

How wondrous wise to thus forbid 
An act no woman ever did! 

‘ Inspired it was,” your priests do say, 

‘ It could have come no other way 
And, doubtless, they are right, at last, 

In guessing how that law was passed, 

For ’twas a strife 'twixt God and men, 
Who should do more absurd things then; 
And God doth seem most frequently 
To have obtained the victory. 

A single-case will clearly show 
The lengths to which the Lord would ga 
To vanquish some poor* human foe 
In doing things extremely low. 

A minstrel sweet (?) hath gravely sung 
That God made him eat human — 

Or ordered him at least to make it 


i 



180 


THE DEVILS DEFEN3&. 


In form of barley cakes and bake it; 

Then eat of it all that he could, 

And see if ’twas not very good. 

Ezekiel, for this was he, 

Made cakes by this strange recipe, 

But soon began to feel unwell 
Because of its unsav’ry smell. 

He said he thought his appetite, 

Though good, was not in just the plight— 
H is stomach, somehow, was not right— 

To make him take so much delight 
As otherwise he doubtless might, 

In eating bread so full of—well, 

So full of nastiness and smell. 

He said that since the case was thus, 

Since he was one fastidious “cuss,” 

He’d just be -if he would think 

Of eating bread so full of stink. 

The Lord then modified, we see, 

That very wondrous recipe, 

And gave the good Ezekiel then, 

Instead of that vile-of men, 

Which did, indeed, he said, beat hell 
In its outrageousness of smell, 

Some-of cows, still fresh and sweet, 

And ordered him of this eat. 

Ezekiel thought the change was good, 

And ate, as godly men all should, 

As much of this as e’er he could. 

When Moses died the Hebrews passed 
To their long-promised land at last, 

And signs and wonders still were shown, 





THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


181 


By which to all the world ’twas known 
That God was God to them alone. 

The river Jordan did divide 
Its rolling waters, deep and wide, 

Until that whole anointed band 
Had crossed its bed upon dry land, 

Then soon, as you all doubtless know, 

The massive walls of Jericho 

Came tumbling down when they did blow 

Upon the horns of rams and shout, 

While circling it all round about. 

There then occurred such horrid deeds 
As make one shudder still who reads; 

And yet, we’re made to understand, 

All this was done by God’s command 

All Joshua’s history seems to be 
One vast detail of butchery; 

Where’er he went, the country o’er, 

He soaked the earth in human gore. 

Not men alone, this monster slew, 

But helpless, weeping women, too, 

And little babes, whose dying wail 
Would hearts of fiends have caused to quail, 
He also slew, with greatest glee, 

And loved the sport prodigiously. 

But since I’ve pictured one of these 
Most foul of human butcheries, 

That one I’ll let suffice for all, 

At least a thousand great and small. 

But Joshua did one thing, I find, 

Winch, both in magnitude and kind. 

Leaves other wonders all behind. 

x ' 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

It chanced, upon a slaughter day, 

As all your priests delight to say, 

That, wishing yet more blood to spill, 

He made the sun and moon stand still, 
While he did butcher thousands more, 
And glut his vulture-soul with gore. 

What he desired, we plainly see, 

Was simply light for butchery ; 

And since he thought the moon and sun 
Did round the earth their courses run, 

He ordered them to halt and stand, 

And they obeyed this strange command. 
Yet now ’tis clear to every one 
That, if such thing was ever done, 

’Twas earth that stopped and not the sun ; 
For needless ’tis that I should say 
That earth's own motion gives us day. 

Her surface, then, of course, doth move, 
As just one moment’s thought will prove, 
A thousand miles or more per hour, 

And that with all-resistless power. 

If promptly, then, she should thus stop, 
The very highest mountain’s top 
Would soon be swept by mighty seas 
That could not stop with so much ease. 
Old Joshua, it seems to me, 

Could not have stopped at all to see 
Just where his enemies misdit be: 

O / 

For rocks, and houses, men, and trees. 
And many other things like these, 

Besides the floods of mighty seas 
Would needs have kept right on, you see. 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


183 


With this same vast velocity. 

And when all these had come to rest 
Upon the earth’s immobile breast, 

The shock at starting would, you see, 
Have caused this same catastrophe! 

To be repeated, since the trees, 

And other objects such as these, 

Could not have gotten under way, 

At once, and hence, as sinners say, 

All hell would then have been to pay. 

If sucli thing ever did occur, 

Two facts we clearly must infer, 

That there’s some one hath power to cause 
Suspension quite of nature’s laws, 

And that he’s but the merest tool 
Of every cut-throat, priest, and fool; 

For no wise being, just and good, 

Would do such thing, e’en if he could, 
When its sole object was to flood 
The earth with his own children’s blood. 
And yet before we take this view, 

Let’s be quite sure the tale is true. 

No one can now for certain say 
The book entire was not a play, 

And that this very wondrous tale 
Was not devised to give it sale; 

At any rate, no one can be 
Quite sure that ’tis true history. 

The Greeks and Romans had their Jove 
Who was, like God, a droll old cove, 

And other gods who, then, ’twas thought, 
Took sides in human wars and fought; 


184 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


And did a thousand other things 
To men and women, priests and kings, 
Which, now, ’tis thought, were never done 
By any God except the one 
That you now serve, but who to-day 
No more exists than then did they. 

The time will soon arrive when he 
Will cease, like them, a God to be, 

Save ’tis in old mythology. 

These gods, however, e’en to*day, 

May all exist in drama-play, 

And not a word have I to say 
’Gainst Joshua’s sun-God used this way; 
But no such tale can ever be 
By me received as history. 

If Joshua’s orders kept the sun 
For one whole day on Gibeon, 

Why o’er the vale of Aijalon 
Did he require the moon to stand, 

While thus the sun lit up the land? 
Besides, if this did all take place, 

One-half of all the earth’s great face 
O’er .which the sun was made to stay, 

Must needs have had a double day; 

The other half, deprived of light, 

Must needs have had a double night 
Such things as these, you’re well aware, 
Would have been noticed everywhere, 
And some account of them would be 
In every nation’s history; 

But, save the Bible. I can find 
No historv of any kind 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


186 


From which we safely may infer 
That such things ever did occur. 

But, passing this, our next will be 
The giant Samson’s history. 

’Tis said that Samson did one day, 
With naked hands a lion slay; 

And then, to magnify the tale, 

And give the book a better sale, 

’Tis said a swarm of honey-bees, 
Disdaining hives and hollow trees, 
Resolved to make their new abode 
In that dead lion near the road; 

And that when Samson came once more, 
He found a large and luscious store 
Of honey, which those bees had made. 
Within that lion’s carcass laid. 

Great numbers have this tale admired, 
Because, say they, ’twas all inspired; 
And honey, found in such location, 

Doth prove that ’twas all inspiration, 

Or rather all a fabrication, 

Which never was designed to be 
Received as real history. 

You know that bees do never swarm 
Unless the air is rather warm; 

And soon, in air like this, you see, 

That carcass would have come to be 
A mass of foul putridity ; 

In such a place bees would have died 
If e’er to live there they had tried. 

And hence ’tis clear the writer lied, 

If he designed this tale to be 


180 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 


Received as truthful history. 

Besides all this, in such a home, 

To what could bees have fixed their comb? 
Could all the gods and priests of earth 
Have forced bees into such a berth, 

And made them work? Is not the tale, 
Like that of Jonah’s hotel whale, 

Meant just to give the Bible sale? 

’Tis said that Samson, just for spite, 
Three hundred foxes caught one night, 

And tied their tails all two by two, 

Then passed a brand of fire right through 
Betwixt each pair of tails, you see, 

Then let them go immediately. 

The foxes, then, in great alarm, 

Ran all about and did much harm 
By burning corn, and olive-trees, 

And vines, and other things like these. 

How Samson caught those foxes all, 

Within a space of time so small, 

And how he made them burn green trees, 
And vines, and other things like these, 

Of course, are godly mysteries. 

This Samson was, you know full well, 
The Judge Supreme of Israel, 

And yet he thus, maliciously, 

Destroyed his neighbors’ property, 

Because the wife that he’d forsaken 
A better husband then had taken. 

The Judge’s wanton act you must 
Pronounce decidedly unjust; 

And quite beneath the dignity 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


187 


Of one exalted high as he; 

Yet ’twas the Lord that did inspire 
Him thus to vent his foolish ire. 

Another time ’tis clearly shown 
This Judge seized up an ass’s bone, 

And slew with it, himself alone, 

A thousand men; then slaked his thirst 
With water which at once outburst 
From that same bone; then, later still, 
Three thousand more at once did kill, 
By tipping o’er the grand hotel 
In which these people all did dwell. 
With men of sense ’twill never do 
To say such monstrous tales are true; 
But men there are who cannot see 
In them the least absurdity. . 

These godly men would gladly swear 
That Samson’s strength lay in his hair; 
That once inside a fish’s maw, 

Old Doctor Jonah sat and saw, 

And thus discovered all the use 
To which a fish puts gastric juice, 

That he remained three days, and tested 
Just how it feels to be digested, 

That then he raised an awful yell, 
Declared that fish was surelv “hell,” 

And kicked up such a boist’rous frolic 
As gave the fish a dreadful colic, 

And made it spew him up, you see, 

And set him thus at liberty. 

They’d also gladly swear to day 
That men, like birds, have flown away; 


188 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


And they do all most gravely teach 
That once an ass was called to preach * 
And this is why the ign’rant masses 
For preaching now depend on asses. 
But I no longer will rehash 
Such silly Bible balderdash : 

But having proved the evidence 
To be devoid of common sense, 

Will close my now too long defense 
By briefly summing up, in fine, 

God’s Bible history and mine. 


CONCLUSION. 

Both God and myself, as you doubtless all know, 
Were chronic old bachelors long time ago; 
Indeed, if I do not most sadly forget, 

We are both of us chronic old bachelors yet; 

I know that I am, and I cannot recall 
Such fact as his having been married at all. 

And yet, I suppose, ’tis unknown to no one 
That Jesus was this same old bachelor’s son ; 
That Mary, betrothed though she was to another, 
Became of this bachelor’s child the fond mother. 
And now if God was, indeed, Jesus’s pa, 

And never was married to Jesus’s ma, 

I’m sure I cannot, for the life of me, see 
How such a relationship ever could be 
And not be adult’rous, as much as ’tis when 
Wives now are made mothers by bachelor men. 



189 


THE DEVIL'S DEFENSE. 

* 

Hence God is convicted, you plainly do see, 

Of a crime which hath never been charged against me. 

And then when you come to the murderer’s list, 
His name will be found, while my own will be missed; 
Examine the records, and then you will see 
That murder hath never been charged against me. 

But these very records abundantly show 
A host of foul murders against my great foe; 

Whole nations at once, both the young and the old, 
He’s slain for mere sport, or for land, or for gold. 

Men, women, and children, thus slain in a day, 

By him, have been left to rot just where they lay; 
And while their bones there have grown white in the 
sun, 

Their butcher’s been praised as the “Merciful One.” 
And I have been cursed as man’s natural foe, 
Although, as I’ve said, there is no one can show 
That, even amid the most desperate strife, 

I ever deprived any man of his life. 

Now this is unfair, as you see at a glance, 

Yet never before have I had a fair chance 
To show up the facts, and to prove that no blame 
Has ever been justly attached to my name. 

But now the just judges who hear me to-day, 

O’er whom only truth, mighty truth, can have sway, 
Will free me, I’m sure, from the terrible wrong 
Which insolent priests have inflicted so long. 

Then forth there will gleam from the vast page of 
fame. 

What heaven once honored, my great angel name; 
And then, in the splendor of truth growing bright, 

My face will resume its long, long hidden light. 


190 


THE DEVIL S DEFENSE. 


I once, as you know ; was the bright morning star 
Of heaven’s whole host, the most brilliant by far; 
And such I still hope in the future to be, 

When justice, full justice, hath been done to me. 

The priests have oft called me the father of lies, 
But charges unproven like this I despise; 

Indeed, the whole army of priests I defy 
To prove that I ever told even one lie; 

Or ever encouraged my friends to deceive, 

Or tell what themselves did not fullv believe. 

If they will do this, I will then show them ten 
By God himself told to his own chosen men; 

And hundreds, perhaps, which he’s had others tell, 
Great “ whopper lies,” too, never equaled in hell 
’Tis a fact which no priest will attempt to dispute, 
That God showed to Adam a certain rare fruit 
Which beat every other in qualities fine, 

But which for man's eating he did not design. 

That fruit, for some reason, I never knew what, 

Was placed by the Lord in so central a spot 
That Adam and Eve found it right in their way, 

As daily they went to their labor or play. 

Hence God grew uneasy lest they should forget 
And eat all these luscious fall pipping up yet; 

He therefore declared, with a terrible oath, 

That he, without mercy, would murder them both 
The day they should venture so much as to bite 
The fruit that thus temptingly hung in their sight 
This frightened old Adam, a coward at best, 

And put the fruit question with him quite at rest; 
But not so with Eve, as we elsewhere have seen, 

She could not believe that the Lord was so mean; 


s. 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 191 

So horribly cruel, so wanting in sense, 

As thus to kill both for so slight an offense. 

Indeed, since she’d never seen anyone dead, 

She knew not the meaning of what the Lord said; 
Sne knew not what ’twas that he wished her to dread, 
And hence she at once took it into her head 
To eat, if she could, all the pippins there were, 

And thus let him see that he could not scare her 
In any such way ; that death she’d prefer— 

"Whatever that was—to thus living in fear 
Of pippins, so beautiful, hanging so near. 

She firmly believed that the Lord was but joking, 

And hence, after tea, while old Adam sat smoking, 
She took her dear serpent and went, you all know, 

To that very tree which had tempted her so, 

And to which God had told her she never must go. 
She could not imagine just what ’twas to die, 

And said she’d find out, or she’d like to know why; 
Then, urged by the serpent, as elsewhere I’ve said, 

She plucked a fall pippin and ate it like bread. 

Then, feeling at once that the fruit did her good, 

She took some to Adam as soon as she could— 

In this she did just as a loving wife should— 

For she hoped that this fruit, so delicious and mellow, 
Would tend to improve this indecent old fellow, 

And Adam, perceiving that she was all right, 
Concluded to take just a very small bite, 

Complaining to Eve of his poor appetite; 

But, when he had tasted, he danced with delight, 
Then, growing much bolder than ever before, 

He bolted the lot and sent Eve back for more; 

For he, too, perceived that it opened their eyes, 


192 THE devil’s defense. 

4 

And made them more modest as well as more wise. 
And God did not do ns he’d sworn that he would, 

But let them live on just as long as they could; 

And now, if they wish, let my enemies try 
To prove against me so enormous a lie. 

Again, the Lord swore to old Moses and band, 

To lead them all safe to a fair, happy land; 

He had them all start, but, because of the tears 
Which they shed o’er their loved ones now cold on 
their biers, 

He caused them to wander for forty long years, 
Incessantly harrassed by dangers and fears; 

Indeed, all his promises, solemnly spoken, 

And all of his oaths were remorselessly broken, 
lie e’en went so far as to boast that their woe 
Should cause them his base “ breach of promise ” to 
11 know 

That far from possessing a land that was fair. 

Their bones should there bleach in the wild desert air. 
And will my worst enemies venture to say 
That ever I lied in so monstrous a way ? 

For helping plague Job I have suffered much blame, 
But who, in my place, would have not done the same? 
The parti then acted, you all understand, 

I acted for God, by his own strict command ; 

And let my foes blame me as much as they may, 
Twas his place to order and mine to obey. 

If my part was wrong, was not his part still worse? 
Did he not compel me to cause Job to curse? 

I simply did that which he strictly directed, 

And set Job to cursing; what else was expected ? 

But how the false story did ever get out 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 


193 


Concerning Job’s patience, is mingled with doubt; 
For greater impatience I never have known 
Than was by that famous old gentleman shown. 

He cursed like a sailor, till hustled right out 
By Madame Job’s orders, who had not a doubt 
That Joby, in skylarking somewhere about, 

A plague had contracted, too dreadful to name, 

But which was attended with uttermost shame; 

And greatly she feared he might give her the same, 

If there he still staid ; and was she much to blame? 
She e’en went so far as to wish, so they say, 

That God would at once put him out of the way; 
Would give her a chance to secure a new man ; 

For winning whom she even then had a plan ; 

She seemed, too, to think that God promptly would 
do it, 

It Job should curse him, and thus anger him to it. 

She therefore urged Job just to let himself loose, 

To curse God like thunder, and heap such abuse 
On him as would leave him no power to refrain, 

And thus, for her sake, try to get himself slain. 

But Job, when her object was well understood. 
Declared he’d not peg out that way if he could; 

That many years yet he expected of life 
To spend with a younger and handsomer wife 
That live he now would, if ’twere only for spite, 

‘And Joby, of course, was in this about right. 

But, letting this pass, I’ll describe, with sad heart, 

A drama in which God assigned me a part, 

And forced me to act it, as he then directed, 

Although at the first I most strongly objected. 

1 told him ’twould injure my character so 


m 


THE DEVIL’S DEFENSE. 

That men would all hate me where’er I might go, 

But no one, he said, save myself, could he trust 
This part to perform, and that, therefore, I mustJ 
The first thing assigned was to tempt his own son, 
And see how well qualified lie was to run 
The race set before him, and this, you’re aware, 
Demanded great courage as well as great care. 

This task I accomplished as well as I could, 

But Jesus stood firm, as I knew that he would; 

And yet, though my conduct he did not think right, 
His language to me was all kind and polite; 

Quite different it was from the ribaldry low 
Which priests are now wont on myself to bestow. 

The next thing assigned me I would not agree 
To do until God had long reasoned with me. 

He said ’twas a part of his plan of salvation 
And that’ if I failed him, he’d let all creation 
March straight into hell, without further ado, 

And, knowing full well that all this was quite true— 
That hell overcrowded would very soon be— 

I did as he wished, and you now plainly see 
You owe your salvation to none more than me. 

But how did I help, you would gladly be knowing, 
To start God’s machine of salvation to going? 

I crawled into Judas Iscariot one day, 

And showed him just how he could make Jesus pay 
Just how from this business, this Christ enterprise, 
His pockets with “swag” he could fill, and thus rise 
To eminence great, if he’d only be wise; 

And Judas, a Shy lock, took in at a flash 

The plan I proposed, and was soon flush of cash. 

And this was the part that God forced me to take, 


THE DEVILS DEFENSE. 


1V*5 


Declaring his plan of salvation at stake, 

Declaring my aid must be promptly supplied, 

Or men to damnation would all be let slide, 
lie said that his son must be crucified then, 

Must die like rogue for the good of all men ; 

That, since he’d adopted this foul bloody plan, 

On none other would he consent to save man. 

He could not consistently pardon e’en one, 

IIe said, till the people should murder his son; 

That I, by assisting them kindly in this, 

Would give them a title to mansions of bliss. 

He said that so soon as this deed should be done, 
His pard’ning machine would be started to run ; 
And that, by performing the part he’d assigned, 

The savior I’d be of the whole of mankind. 

I could not conceive how this one murder more 
Could pard’ning make easier than ’twas just before; 
But God said it would, and I dared not reply, 

When Jesus he doomed in this manner die; 

Nor when he required me, without more delay, 

To enter Saint Judas and make him betray 
The innocent Jesus, and thus bring about 
II is death which the people could not do without. 
My part I disliked, but since hell was then crammed 
With men of all nations eternally damned, 

Since room I could find for no further supplies, 

I entered at last into this enterprise. 

My work I did well, and Saint Judas did his, 

And I cannot yet understand why it is 
That Jesus is worshiped, while Judas and I 
Are treated like rogues, or in silence passed by ; 
’Twas needful that Jesus should perish just thus, 


196 


THE DJL'VILS DEFENSE. 


And this would have failed, had it not been for u& 
Since heaven depended upon us ail three, 

You ought to praise Judas, and Jesus, and me; 

And then, on reflection, no one can refuse 
The portion of praise justly due to the Jews ; 

For had it not been for the aid of this nation, 

What would have become of God’s plan of salvation? 
Would it not have failed, and would not all creation 
Be marching to-day straight to hell and damnation? 
Had no one been willing that victim to slay, 

What would I be doing for hell-room to-day? 

If aught there was wrong in thus murd’ring his son, 
That wrong was God’s own, for he had the deed done; 
And we were but instruments, helpless, you see, 

And bound to do just what lie chose to decree. 

His might, then upon us, we could not withstand, 

Nor could we escape his omnipotent hand ; 

Indeed, there’s no creature beneath the bright sun 
Can thwart what the Lord hath resolved to have done. 
His infinite presence all nature doth fill, 

And nothing can happen which he doth not will; 
Then why do you link with my much abused name 
Those evils for which he alone is to blame? 

Why do you thus wrongfully persecute rue 
For being just what he hath made me to be? 

My nature lie fixed, and it seems very strange 
That I should be cursed for what I cannot change. 

As well might you curse, for their natures divine, 

The angels of light as to curse ine for mine. 

And now, having done, to my mythical hell 
I gladly return. Fare ye well ! fare ye wellj 

THE END. \ 


THE TRUTH SEEKER LIBRARY. 


THE WORLD’S SAGES. THINKERS AND REFORMERS. 
Containing sketches of some three hundred of the most distin¬ 
guished Philosophers and Teachers that have lived in th« 
world. beginning with Menu and coming down to the present 
time. By D. M. Bennett. Seoond edition, revised and enlarged. 
Over lioo pages, Crown-octavo. «#loth, $3.90; Leather, $4.99! 
Morocco with gilt edges. $4.60. 

THE CHAMPIONS OP THE CHURCH. BEING BIOGRAPHI- 
*al sketches of Eminent Christians from the earliest to the 
*atest times. Soon to appear. It will contain full accounts of 
Christian wars, persecutions, tyranny, and wrongs, for more 
than fifteen hundred years, making in the aggregate a full 
Church history. By D. M. Bennett. Over 1000 pages. Crown- 
•otavo. Cloth. $3.00 ; Leather. $4.oo; Morocco, gilt edges. $4.69. 

ANALYSIS OP RELIGIOUS BELIEP. By Viscount Am. 
borley, son of Lord John Russell, twice Premier of England. 
An elaborate examination into the faiths of the world, the 
snored writings, the sacraments and religious ceremonies, the 
• principal Savi »rs, Messiahs, Redeemers and Great Teachers 
that have appeared in the past. Complete in one volume, 
crown octavo, from the London edition. Cloth. $3.09; Leather, 
$4.00; Morocco and gilt edges, $4.50. 

THE GREAT WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE. Complete, con¬ 
taining his theological writings and his chief political works. 
It contains Common Sense, The Ci isis. The Rights of Man. The 
Age of Reason, The Examination of Prophecies, R«*ply to 
Bishop Llandaflf. Letter to Mr. Erskine, Letter to Camille Jor¬ 
dan, an Essay on Dreams, of the Religion of Deism, etc. with a 
Life of Paine by Calvin Blanchard, and a steel-plate engraving 
of Paine. In one volume, crown-octavo. Cloth, $3.oo; Leather, 
$ 4 . 00 : Morocco and gilt edges, $4.60. 

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. By Prof. W. K. Clifford. F.R.& 
This remarkable and very able work was published anony¬ 
mously in London, in three volumes, octavo, and doubtless 
excited more attention and cii icism from theologians thin 
any similar work that has appeared for th® last century. It Is 
unauestionably the ablest examination into the claims of 
Supernatural and Revealed BelL ion of any work that has as 
yet appeared. It exhausts the subjects of Miracle*. The Syn' 
optic Gospels. The Fourth Gospel. The Acts of the Apostles, 
The Besurrec ion. and the Ascen'i- n. and contains full replies 
to the author's critic*. Pub ished o >mplete in one T 'lurne. 
from the last London edition, including Greek and Hebrew 
Quotations. The English edition cost $12.60. The price of this 
complete edition, in doth. $3 60; lea'her. red edges, $4.60; mor¬ 
occo. gilt edges. $5. The five volumos here designated sent by 
mail, iu cloth, at $12.60. By express. $n; in leather, by mail. $t$t 
by express.$.8.60. Morocco and gilt, by mail.$4); by expreaa.liit 



WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE. 


COMMON 8EN8E. His first and most important polit 
leal work. Bold, clear type. Paper, 15 cents. 

THE CRISIS. Containing Nos. I. to XVI., inclusive. 
Written in the “times that tried men’s souls” during the 
American Revolution. 12mo. Full, clear type. Paper, 5ft 
cents ; cloth, 80 cents. 

TOE RIGHTS OF MAN. Written in defense of his 
fellow man. A work almost without a peer in the world. 
On full, bold type. 12mo. Paper, 50 cents ; cloth 80 cents. 

THE AGE OF REASON. On large, clear type. Paper, 
25 cents ; cloth, 50 cents. 

THE AGE OF REASON AND AN EXAMINATION 
OF THE PROPHECIES. Full, bold type. 12mo. Paper. 
40 cents ; cluth, 75 cents. 

PAINE’S POLITICAL WORKS. Complete in one 
Tomrne, on full, bold type. Containing “ Common Sense.” 

“The Crisis” (sixteen numbers), and “The Rights of 
Man,” with a fine steel portrait. Cloth, $1.50. 

PAINE’S THEOLOGICAL WORKS. Complete. 12mo 
Comprising “Age of Reason,” “ Examination of thr Proph¬ 
ecies.” “ Reply to Bishop Llar.daft” “ Letter to Mr. Era- 
kine,” “ Letter to Camille Jordan,” “An Essay on Dreams ” 
“Of the Religion of Deism,” etc., etc., with a Life and 
fine steel portrait of Paine. Cloth, $1.50.- 

THOMAS PAINE’S GREAT WORKS. Complete 
New edition. The cheapest and best ever sold. Contain¬ 
ing a Life of Paine, his Political Writings —“Common 
Sense/’ “ The Crisis,” “ Rights of Man his Theologi¬ 
cal Writings —“Age of Reason,” “Examination of the 
Prophecies,” “ Reply to Bishop Llandaff,” “ Letter to Mr 
Rrskine/’ “An Essay on Dreams,” “ Letter to Camille Jor¬ 
dan, Of the Religion ol Deism”—all in one large volume 
crown octavo, of The Truth Sezker Library, with a 
fine steel portrait of Paine. Cloth. $a.00 ; colored leather, 
red burnished edges, $-100 ; morocco, gilt edges, $4.50. 

LIFE OF THOMAS PAINE. By Calvin Blanchard. 
Umo. Large, clear type with a fine steel portrait of Pain* 

I aper, 40 cents ; cloth, /5 cents. 

Published by 

DrM. BENNETT. 

Ml filehtb Street, Row York. 



tfo. 

l. Discussion on Pimytr. etc. D. M. Bennett nnd twt> OWt- 

gytueu.,... 

2 Oration on the Gods. B. G. Ingereoll.'. 

3. Thomas Paine. R. G. Ingersoll. 

4. Arraignment of the Church; or. Individuality. Robert 

G. Ingersoll.. 

9. Heretics and Heresies. R. G. Ingersoll... 

ft. Humboldt. R. G. Ingersoll. 

7. The Story of Creation. D. 11. Bennett. 

8 . The Old Snake Story. ** ** . 

9. The Story of the Flood. " '* . 

to. 1'he Plagues of Egypt. ** ° . 

It. Koran, Datham and Ahiram. D. M. Bennett. 

12 . Balaam and his Ass. D. M. Bennett. 

13. Arraignment of Priestcraft D. M. Bennett. 

11 Old Abe and Little Ike. John Syphers.. 

15. Come to Dinner. *’ ** . 

lft Fog Horn Documents. ** M . 

17. The Devil Still Ahead. “ “ . 


18 . Slipped Up Again. " " . 

19. Joshua Stopping the Sun and Moon. D. M. Bennett.... 

so. Samson and his Exploits. D. M. Bennett. 

21. The Great YVrestling Match. “ “ . 

22. Diseussion with Ela. Shelton.’’ ** . 

23. Reply to Eldei Shelton’s Fourth Lettor. D. M. Bennett. 

24. Christians at Work. Wm. McDonnell. 

25. Diseussion with George Snodo. D. M. Bennett. 

2ft Underwood’s Prayer. 

27. Honest Questions and Honest Answers. D. M. Bennett. 

28. Alessandro di Cagliostro. Chas. Sotheran. 

29. Paine Hall Dedication Address. B. F. Underwood. 

30. Woman’s Rights and Man’s Wrongs. John SypherB.... 

ai. Gods and God-Houses. John Sypiicrs... 

32. The Gods of Superstition and the God of the Universe, 

D. M. Bennett. 

33. What has Christianity Done? S. H. Preston. 

34. Tribute to Thomas Paine. S. H. Preston. 

,4 5 Moving the Ark. D. M. Bennett. 

so. Bennett’s Prayer to the Devil.... 

37. Short Sermon No. One. Rev. Theolonicus, D.D. 

3s. Christianity Not a Moral System. X. Y. Z. . 

39. The True Saint. S. P. Putnam... 

40 . The Bible of Nature vs. the Bible of Men. J. Syphers.. 

41. Our Ecclesiastical Gentry. D. M. Bennett. 

42. Elijah the Tishbite. D. M. Bennett.......... 

43. Christianity a Borrowed System. D. M. Bennett. 

41 . Design Argument Refuted. B. F. Underw od. 

45. Elisha the Prophet. D. M. Bennett... 

4 ft. Did Jesus Really Exist? D. M. Bennett. . . 

47 . Cruelty aud Credulity of the Human Race. Dr.D. Arier. 

48 . Freethought in the West. G. L. Henderson. 

49 . Sensible Conclusions. E. E. Guild. 

50. Jonah and the Big Fish. D. M. Bennett... .. 

61. Sixteen Truth Seeker Leaflets. No. I....... 

62 . Marples-Underwood Debate. B. F. Underwood........ 

63. Questions for Bible Worshipers. B. F. Underwood. .. 

Ci An Open Letter to Jesus Christ. D. M. Bennett. 

51. Bible God Disproved by Nature. W. E. Coleman..;.,, 

6i». bible Contradictions. ...w * *..j. 

6i. Jos us Not a Perf^et Character. B. F. Underwood. 

43. Prooheoiea. B. F. 0 iwierweo J.. ... 


tt* 

• 

H 

I 

a 

i 

1 

* 

1 

» 

2 

1 

S 

8 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

10 

3 
9 
S 
1 

1 
10 

9 

a 

2 

a 

9 

a 

a 

a 

j 

a 

l 

a 

l 

4 

a 

8 

a 

8 

f 

I 

< 

3 

I 

t 

t 

f 

I 

1 

I 

f 




















































m. Bible Prophecies Concerning Babylon. Underwood.... s 

<m). Ex^kiot’s Prophecies Concerning Tyre. Underwood... i 

«». History of the Devil. Isaac Paden. I 

82 . The Jews and their God, Isaac Paden. It 

t3. The Devil’s Due Bills. John Syphers. > 

64. The Ills we Endure—their Clause and Cure. Bennett.. • 

69. Short Sermon No. Two. Rev. Theologicus, D. D....... 2 

66. God-Idea in History. Hugh Byron Brown... » 

67. Sixte *n Truth Seeker Leaflets, No. 2. • 

68 Ruih’s Idea of Heaven and Mine, butan H. TV ixon., , 2 

69. Missionaries. Mrs. E. D. Blenker. 2 

70 . Vicarious Atonement. Dr. J S. Lyon. 3 

71. Paine’s Anniversary. C. A. Codman. • 

72. Hhadiaoh, Meshach. and Abed-nego. D. M. Bennett,... 2 

73. Foundations. John Syphers. 3 

74. Daniel in the Lions’Den. D. M. Bennett. S 

76. An Hour with the Devil. D. M. Bennett. 8 

76. Reply to Erastus F. Brown, D.M. Bennett. f 

77. The Fear of Death. D.M. Bennett. 8 

78. Christians and Christianity. D.M. Bennett.,.. 9 

79. The Relationship of Jesus, Jehovah, and the Virgin 

Mary. VV. E. Coleman.. 7 

80 . Addie^s on Thomas Paine. D.M. Bennett. 8 

81. Hereafter: or. the Half-wav House. John Syphers.... 2 

22. Onristiau Courtesy. D M. Bennett. 2 

33. Revivalism Examined. A. G. Humphrey. 6 

84. Moi dy’s Sermon on Hell. Rev. J. P. Hoi ps. London... 3 

85. Matter. Motion. Life, and Mind. D. M. Bennett. s 

88. An Enquiry ahout God’s Son s. D.M, Bennett. 8 

87. Froethougbt Judged by its Fruits. B. F. Underwood.. 1 

88. David—God’s Peculiar Favorite. Mrs. E. D. Slenker... 8 

88. Logic of Prayer. Charles Stephenson. a 

SCIENTIFIC SERIES. 

1. Hereditary Transmission. Prof. Louis Elsberg, M.D... 6 

2. Evolution: from the Homogeneous to the Heterogen¬ 

eous. B. F. Underwood. 8 

$. Darwinism. B. F. Underwood.. 3 

vs Literature of the Insane. Frederio R. Marvin. M.D. 8 

6. Responsibility of Sex. Mrs. Sara B. Chase, M.D. 3 

6. Graduated Atmospheres. James McCarroll. 2 

7. Deat.fc. Frederick R. Marvin, M.D. . . 8 

8. How do Marsupials Propagate? A. B. Bradford. 8 

8. Tne Unseen World. John Fiske. 10 

The first eight Scientific Tracts are made into a pamphlet of 
128 pages, at 20 cents. 

Jiscount on 81 worth. 10 per cent.; on 82 worth, 20 per cent.; on 
>9 wortn, 26 per pent.; on $5 worth. 40 per cent.; on 810 worth. 80 
nor cent. Postpaid, by mail. 

The foregoing Tracts, from No. i to No. 77. Inclusive, to¬ 
gether with eight Scientific Tracts, are issued in THREE 
VOLUMES, of over five hundred pages each,at theextremely low 
vrice of to cents in paper, and 81.00 in cloth; or 81.80 for the 
Ihree volumes in paper, or $2.60 for the three volumes In cloth. 
Cheaper and better rcadirg matter on a wide variety of subject* 
tad by different authors, can nowhere be obtained. 

D. k. BENNETT, Science Hall, 

141 Eighth street, New York. 






























n 


“EXETER HALL, 


By wm. McDonnell. 

Author oi ” The Heathens of the Heath." 


A beautiful, tender, delicate, pathetic, and most convino 
i»g composition. A beautiful exhibit of the many mis- 
chievous effects growing out of religious dogmas founded 
upon the inspiration and divine authority of the Bible. It 
strongly denies the divine character claimed for that book 
by its mistaken devotees, and shows up in vivid colors the 
practical effects of superstition and religious fanaticism. 

“Altogether, it is the most searching book ever published 
In America since the ‘Age of Reason.’ ” 

Price, in paper, 60 cents; in cloth, 80 cents. Sent post¬ 
paid by mail Address 

D. M. BENNETT, Publisher, 

335 Broadway, New York. 


TWELVE TRACTS, 

BY B. F. UNDERWOOD. 

/ / *" 

Underwood’s Prayer; Paine Hall Address; Design Argument 
Refuted; Marples-Underwood Debate; Questions for Bible 
Worshipers; Jesus Not a Perfect Character: Prophecies; Bible 
Prophecies Concerning Babylon; EzekbTs Prophecies Concern¬ 
ing Tyre; Evolution; From the Homogeneous to the Hetrogen- 
eous; Darwinism; The Christian’s Creed. 

Containing in all over 100 pages. Price 20 cents. 


Innocent Amusement for the Young. 

BIKEMAH'S 200 POETICAL BIDDLES. 


These Riddles embrace a large variety of subjects, ana 
will be found very entertaining to children, as well as te 
those of larger growth. 

They will assist materially in affording amusement ti» 
focial parties, as well as to the fireside family circle. 

Price, 20 cents by mail. 

D. M. BENNETT, Science Hall, 

141 Eighth street, Ne v York, 






An Interesting Radical Story, 

THE DARWINS. 


BY 

MRS. EOII\A D. SLEAKER. 


An bar of -‘Studying the Bible,” “J .ba’d W^y,” and 

numerous Essays 

This Romance Is written in M s. Slenker’s lively and in¬ 
structive sty e, and teaches on every page thcgand leseoas of 
J./»b@'allsm and Tru h. being sto y and philosophy combined, 
t fa>- more interesting to many people than are heavy end 
d»/ diss^rta 1 ioDB The reader is interested from the begin¬ 
ning. and k r pt so throughout the work. Every person fond of 
good Liberal readl g will do well to obtain this. and. when read, 
hand ft to his neighbor. 

257 pages. In paper. 60 cent?. Cloth, 75 cents. 

“ 1 h v /e read * The Darwins,' and am pleased with it; and so 
are all to whom I have lent it. Were such works mo e plenty. 
Carisri us w uld be soon less numerous.”—/). Nielnon . 


“The look bearing th- above title, written by the well known 
Mrs. E. L'. Blanker, and publi-hed bp D M. Bennett of New 
¥o»k. deserves more than an ordinary bt lef n< tke. It is a 
pleasing at d we i-wri ten domes ic story, portraying every-day 
home life aud m ine incidents, and introducing frequently much 
s >uud philosophy, as well as vigorous Freethough' principles, 
for which the author is >-eiiowned. Sue champion-* the cause of 
houesiy, purity, and common sense, and pleads for freedom *o 
think, speak, aad act in accordance with the true and healthy 
laws of 'he universe, at the same time dealing t enchant blows 
at the leprous sins that stain the age, and so tatallv lower the 
standard of true manhood and noble womanhood. The preva¬ 
lent soterstirions come in for well-merited * idicule and dsnun- 
clati n.and almost every evil and curse, from tobacco to hy¬ 
drophobia, in pierced by the author’s sba p pen, who. while 
dealing sturdy blows upon the shams aui shames of the cen¬ 
tury. does not forget ? o hold ud to view that which is most ex- 
ce l nt -nd worthy of Imi adon and emulation. 'Ik? s ory is 
Ailed with eate-tainiug end ive matter, and should be 

read by everybod .’’—Susan H Wixon. 

I thought that Mr- Slsnber’s‘John's Wav’could not bepur- 
pass^d for mauire rtfl cion aud masterly araumeu , but alec 
lea dng * Tue D irwins ’ I f und she hud surpassed he-'self with 
ease.» nd that I had n t given her full Ciedi-. < n th t rc re of 
energy, force, 'magerr. him! intel'ec ual scope .”—Jas t-r Stone. 


tiie 

CLERGYMAN’S VICTIMS. 

A Radical Romance, 

By j»r§. J. E. Ball. 

This pamphlet of ov^r ico pages is a pie ssing. animated, do- 
story, p eventing Liberal thought in an agreeable man* 
i tr.au • wi.l b ' re d by thousands wh re heavier, drier, and 
ni.o fc . pbil« sophical and metaphysical works are not ir» lened. 
I < * u e od story to lend Gut istIan neighbors to read, 
r. 1 25 cents. 

A>,u.e s D. M. BEKNETT, 141 Eighth Bt. New York City. 



biographical Sketches of Eminent Christiana. 


k COMPANION BOOK OR COUNTERPART TO ** THE WORLD*! 
SAGES. INFIDELS AND THINKERS. 

Will be Issued early in 1877. Containing a correct history of such 
di»vfnguished ornaments of the Church as St. Paul, Eusebius. Con- 
•tantine, St. Cyril, Clovis. Pepin. Charlemagne, Irene. Pone Joan. 
John XII.. John XIII., Alexander I., Alexander III., Innocent III., 
Boniface YiII„ Benedict XII., John XXII.. John XXIII., Alexander 
VI., and some fifty others of the Popes; Godfrey of Bouillon, Guy 
Lusignan. Simon Montfort. St. Dominic. Peter the Cruel. Sigismund, 
Louis XI. of France, Loyola. Ojeda. Torquemada, Luther. Calvin. 
Munzer, Ferdinand and Isabella, Cortez. Pizarro, Henry VIII of 
England, Bloody Mary, 41va. Cranmer, Elizabeth, Charles IX. of 
France, Catherine de Medici, Philip II. of Spain. Guy Fawkes, Oliver 
CiomweU. Jeffrey, Charles II., Louis XIV. of France, Johu Graham. 
(Claverhouse), James II., Parris. Cotton Mather, Ephraim K. Avery 
Bishop Onderdonk.L. D, Huston. Henry Ward Beecher. Anthony 
Comstock, and hosts of others of the same fraternity, including wily, 
designing, libidinous, lecherous fathers, bishops, priests and pastors 
for many centuries. 

A full history is given of the bloody wars of Christianity, which 
have been inhumanly waged to spread its rule. The wars of the 
Crusades; the terrible operations for hundreds of years of tbo Holy 
Inquisition with its auto-da-fe; the merciless persecu ions and 
exterminations of the Vaudois. the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the 
Moors audJewsof Spain, the Huguenots of France, the Protestant 
Nethorlanders. the Independents. Quakers and Dissenters of Eng- 
land; the Quakers and witches of New England. It contains a his¬ 
tory of Jesuitism for three ceuturies; of the granting and soiling 
of indulgences by the Church, to commit all kinds of crimes aud 
immoralities,as well as culpable defections of recent date. The bio¬ 
graphical portion is preceded by a historical examination into the 
authenticity of ancient Jewish History, showing that the part of it 
anterior to the Babylonish captivity, is wholly unauthentic and 
mythical; of Primitive Christianity—its origin, its semblauce to 
pre-existent systems of religion, its adoption of Pagan rites, its 
political growth and influence. The whole based upon Christian 
authorities. 

BY D. M. BENNETT, 

Editor of "The Truth Seeker.’* 

One thousand pages or more, making a volume of the size and 
•tyle of “ The World’s Sages. Infidels, and Thinkers.” 

la cloth. 400 

Arabesque, colored leather and rod burnished edges, i oo 

Morocco, gilt edges and worked head-bands, . . 4 80 

Fost-pnid. by mail. Those wishing a copy of this volume as soon 
ts issued, will please notify the author and publisher at an earl* 

D M. BENNETT, 

LcBERkL AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING ITOCBE, 

Science Hall, 141 Eighth St., New To»%. 




A JOINT DISCUSSION BETWEEN 

REV. & H. HUMPHREY, Presbyterian Clergyman, 

OP NEW YORK, AND 

D. M. BENNETT, Editor of The Truth Seeker. 

It was conducted in tbe columns of The Truth Seeker, a let* 
ter alternately from each contestant appearing each week, 
beginning A pril 7, 1877, and closing Sept. 29, 1877, thus con¬ 
tinuing just tix months, giving thirteen letters from Humphrey 
and thirteen replies by Bennett. 

The subjects discussed were as follows: 

Part I.— The relative services of Christianity and Infi¬ 
delity to Amer can Liberty. 

Part II.— The relative services of Christianity and 

Infidelity to Lu 'ruing and Science. 

Part IIL— Is there a stronger probability that the 
Bible is divint than that Infidelity is true? 

The discussion has excited a large share of interest, both 
among believers uid u ioelievers; and as both sides are fairly 
presented, it is suited to readers of all shades of opinion. 

The New York Advocate , a paper having a very extensive 
circulation, in spetkii.g of the volume, says, “Perhaps a more 
able aud exhaustive presentation of both sides of the great 
questions which lu-ve agitated the civilized world for centuries 
has never been made. At any rate, in this volume will be found 
a perfect magazino or storehouse of arguments, pro and con , 
which every intelligent man and woman should peruse with 
candor and with a l earnest desire to arrive at sound conclu¬ 
sions on themes of the highest inportance to all mankind. . . 
Light is what we t etd. Let the controversies proceed. Let the 
blows descend upon the error-dispelling anvil. Let the spark* 
fly in all directioni from the heated steel. The truth, the whol* 
truth, aud nothing but the truth, is what the people demand on 
all the great questions of the day, whether of Finance, Science, 
Politics, or Ueligi m, and discussion will elicit it.” Let every 
person who feels the slightest interest in theological questions, 
whether on one side or the other, read the Humphrey-Bennelt 
Discussion. 

A thick 12mo volume, of about 550 pages, well bound, seat, 
post-paid, to any address for the low price of one dollar. 

Addreu 

D. M. BENN 







The Truth Seeker Leaflets. 

Containing two pages each of short, sharp, terse, trenchant read- 
ing matter, well suited for eireulation among friends, neighbors, 
enquirers, and all disposed to read, and who would not ears to 
andertake a book or a lengthy essay. They help materially to dif¬ 
fuse the Truth, and with a great saving of time and breath. 

Christian devotees have long bored us with religious tracts, and 
it la time for us to return the oompliment, and to give them soma* 
(ting worthy of being read. 

The following are the titles and number* of 

THE TRUTH SEEKER LEAFLETS. 

L Godliness and Manliness. 2. Is the Bible the Word of God! 
• Divinity of Christianity. L The Grand Plan of Salvation. 
B. Christian Confessions, t. Thirty-six Questions. T. Christian 
Frauds, a. The Light of the Gospel. •. Christianity Briefly Consid¬ 
ered. 10. The Bible and Liberty. 11. Safest to Believe. 12. The Bible 
and the Fagot IS. Infidelity Vindicated. H. Christian Missions. 

IS. The Story of the Cross Simply Stated. 16. Godly Guardianship. 

IT. An Impending Crisis. 18. Christians Easily Believe. 19. What 
Science has Done. 20. Why does not God Kill the Devil? 21. New 
Testament Beauties. 22. Extracts from Shelley. 23. The Bible Not 
a True Witness. 24. The Christian’s Creed. 25. God in a Nutshell. 
M. Fraternity of Jesus Christ 27. Testimonials to the Merits of 
Thomas Paine. 28. Christian Admissions against the Scriptures. 
IS. The Gospel aoeording to St. Thomas, so. Truth the Most Valua¬ 
ble Treasure. tL The Bible Picture of Jehovah. 32. The Eternity 
of Matter. 

Bent assorted as desired, post-paid, at 4 cts. per dozen; 8 cts. for 
the entire assortment; 23 cts. per hundred, or 12.00 per thousand. 

Let thorn be distributed freely In every town, village and neigh¬ 
borhood! Let every person be brought to the knowledge of the 

truth. Address. 

D. M. BENNETT, 

Liberal amd Scientific Publishing House, 


BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, CIRCULARS, LETTER HEADS, 
BILL-HEADS, CARDS, ENVELOPES, AND 

JOB PRINTING OF ALL DESCRIPTIONS 

Neatly executed, at the lowest prices, and sent b j Mail et Be 
press to ill parts of the country. 




np WTl FRO AND CON 

OF 

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION: 

OR, 

Ad Answer to the Question: “Have we a Super- 
naturally Revealed, Infallibly Inspired, and 
Miraculously Attested Religion in 
the World?” 


IX FOUR FARTS. 

PART I- A brief history of the four great Religions claiming a 
Supernatural origin—Paganism. Judaism, Christianity and Moham¬ 
medanism. 

PART II. Review of the arguments in favor of Supernatural 
Religion. 

PART III. Statement of the arguments against Supernatural 
Religion. 

PART IV. Particular remarks on the Supernatural origin of 
Christianity, and statement of the views of Rationalists oa Inspira¬ 
tion. Revelation and Religion. 


BY E. E. GUILD. 


TOOETHES WITH A SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF TOE AUTHOR 


There is no human religion outside of human nature. 

The different forms of religion contain the eiements of one uni¬ 
versal religion, and are but different phasos of the religion of 
kuwanity. 

Describe to me the God whom you worship, and I see in that 
description a reflex image of yourself. 


This is an able, argumentative, clear, and logical examination of 
the Questions discussed. It pressQte fairly the opposing arguments 
and givsa due consideration to every Bide of the subject. 

Every Liberal can afford to own th's lPtle work, and it will ta 
found a valuable acquisition to h,a library. 

i»> pp. la papa*. 40 <*U.; aloth. V ct* Postpaid by mail 


IVew Yorlc 







THE TRUTH SEEK ER, 

A Weekly Journal of Progress and Eeform; 

DEVOTED TO 

SCIENCE, MORALS , FREETH OUGHT AND 
HUMAN IIA E El N ESS. 


D. M. BENNETT, Editor and Publisher. 
\ _ 


_ B elieving there Is nothing In the world so valuable as Truth, 
The Truth Seeker is earnest and constant in search of It. and has. 
•tales not to fearlessly avow its honest convictions It is outspoken 
In its condemnation of the errors and fallacies of the past, and in 
holding up in the light of the present era the theological dogmas and 
trie blinding creeds of pagan superstition which had their origin 
thousands of years ago In the primitive ages of our race. 

The Truth Seeker was started as an eight-page Monthlv. in 
Paris, Ill., in September. 1873, Four numbers were issued in that 
locality, when it was decided to remove it to New York, and to double 
Its number of pages. With the beginning of its second volume. It 
became a Semi-Monthly, and the second volume was continued six¬ 
teen months, to the close of 1875, when it became a Weekly, steadily 

f lowing and increasing in popularity with its readers from its 
b fancy. It is believed The Truth Seeker is destined to become the 
r« cognized champion and mouth-piece of the rapidly-growing Lib¬ 
eral and progressive element of the country. 

Every lover of Truth: every person favorable to the fearless 
expression of Honest opinions; every individual who wishes to 
spread broadcast the glad tidings of Rightand Reason; everyfriend 
of mental liberty who desires that sectarianism superstition, big¬ 
otry and error shall retire to the roar, should subscribe for the 
valiant Truth Seekkb. and induce as many others to do so as pos¬ 
sible. 


The friends of truth and progross can hardly be said to have dis¬ 
charged their full duty who do not lend their support to this merito< 
rious publication. 

In No. I. Vol. III., Is commenced as a serial, that rich, radical 
romance, The Outcast, by the late Winwood Reade. one of the ablest 
and most interesting writers this century has produced. Professor 
Richard A. Proctor’s popular course of Lectures on Astronomy, as 
delivered in Steinway Hall, New York, reported expressly for Thb 
Truth Seeker, will be commenced in the same number. As the 
English edition of The Outcast sells at $2.00. and as Proctor’s course 
of Lectures cost $'3.00, and as these together form but a small portion 
of the valuable reading matter given for $2.00, the reader can easily 
perceive how reasonable The Truth Seeker is in prico. 

Its very moderate terms place it within the reach of all. It Is 
sent, post-paid. 

Twelve Months for.$3 00 

Six Months for.150 

Three Months for. 75 


Sample copies sent upon application. 

The names of all Liberal-mindud people are solicited, who woul<? 
fee liitely to appreciate a periodical of this character. 

Reader, please decide at once to add your name to the fortunate 
thousan is who are on The Truth Seeker list. If not alreadt 
ordered, send for it for either twelve or six. or at least 

Aoutha. Address _ „ ____ 

D. M. BENNETT, Pubi/^hf.r, 




HIE TRUTH SEEKER 

Ijp the largest, boldest, and cheapest Radical paper published in the 
world. Devoted to Science, Reform, Progress, and Human Happiness. 
It earnestly seeks the truth and does not fear to avow it when found. 
It has no confidence in the myths, theological fables, and superstitions 
which have cursed the world for thousands of years. It is not a friend 
to kingcraft, priestcraft, or tyranny of any kind. It advocates menta 
and physical freedom — especially freedom of thought, freedom of 
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of the mails, sternly oppos¬ 
ing any infringement of these constitutional rights of the people. 

Price, including postage, $3.00 per year, or 25 cents per month. 
Sent on trial to new names for 50 cents for three months. Sixteen 
larg* pages, published weekly Try it three months. 

RADICAL PUBLICATIONS. 

The Truth Seeker Library. —/II large octavo volumes 

of a thousand pages each. Cloth, $3.00 ; 'eather and red edges, 
$4.00; morocco and gilt edges, $4.50. If the whole five are 
taken and sent by express, 25 per cent is deducted. The books are. 
The World’s Sages, Thinkers, and Reformers, The Champions of tho 
Church, Thomas Paine’s Great Works (theological and political), Lord 
Amberley’s Analysis of Religious Belief, and Supernatural Religion, 
by Prof. W. K. Clifford. Tho latter is $4.00, $5.00, and $5.50. 

Other Radical Works. —Greg’s Creed of Christendom, 
01 .50 ; Paine’s Political and Theological Works, published sopar 
ately, $1.50 each ; Thirty Discussions, etc., 75 cents and $1 : Truth 
Seeker Tracts, five volumes of 500 pages each, 60 cents and $1—by 
the set, 50 cents and 75 cents; Humphrey Bennett Discussion, $1 ; 
Bennett-Teed Discussion, 30 cents and 50 cents; Interrogatories to 
Jehovah, 50 cents and 75 rents; Burgess-Underwood Debate, 50 
cents and §0 cents; Undervood-Marples Debate, 35 cents and 60 
cents; Addresses and Pro ;eedings at the Watkins Convention, 
$1.25 ; Truth Seeker Collet tion, 75 cents; Dr. J. Simm’s System of 
Physiognomy, 8vo, $3, $4, and $4.50; Heathens of the Heath, 
$1 and $1.50; The Dan/ins, 50 cents and 75 cents; Araberley’s 
Life of Jesus, 35 cents and 60 cents; Career of Religious Ideas, 50 
cents and 75 cents; Holy Bible Abridged, 30 cents and 50 cents; 
Holy Cross Series, thirteen lumbers, anti-papal, 10 cents to 50 cent* 
and 75 cents; Influence of Christianity on Civilization, 25 cents; 
Last Will and Testament of Jean Mealier^ a Catholic priest, 25 cents; 
Chronicles of Simon Christianus, 25 cents; Religion not History, 25 
cents; Resurrection of Jesus, 25 cents; Bell’s Life of Jesus, 15 
cents; Christianity and Materialism, 15 cents; Anthony Comstock: 
his Career of Cruelty and Crime, 25 cents; Sepher Toldoth Jeschu, 
the Book of the Generation of Jesus, 20 cents; The Jamieson-Ditzler 
Debate, 50 cents and 75 cents; What Liberalism oilers in the 
place of Christianity, 10 cents; Truth Seeker Tracts, nearly two 
hundred varieties, from 1 cent to 10 cents each; Truth Seeker Leaf¬ 
lets, thirty-two kinds, $ cents per set, 25 cents per hundred, $2 per 
thousand. Radical and miscellaneous books of all kinds furnis hed to 
order. Send for a catalogue. Addreaa, D. IS. BElHSTT f 
141 Eighth street, New York. 

L C2 7 7 4 1 8 4 

' <2>\CK*Av. 
















. 






























































































* 
















































(V 


«» 















l • J 
















































'* *> v • c\ A. c 

^U+ jfr ^ «J^ * 

smMv, ^ 

aV> 

^ v 



1 c\ J ti* * *. 

* \0 <p> * 

.0^ »vVL% ’> 


* «p> 

v. V,*n 




^ -... ♦ ,o 

, • \^-, ^ c o' .al*J 


°o * 

*- c\ .0 

1 . * *?\. » 
C* * 

”, '’*'? • 

. A-* v 

,♦ -V > - 


f° % '* 
1 .‘_v-. *> 



»* A 



o * » 


~ * «> . 0 ° 4 V 

V ** # ®- c\ B 

* +$> A v * A\ /V c ^ 

* C^> ^rv 

* <“> v *a>. 

4 ^ V 


,^ V r'Ll* ^ ,o* 

«N ♦ JC/^A^S * v Sj • 



o_ ♦ 



$p ^ 

N v °*. * i'o •’’* f 0° %,' ♦... 

V c\ .JV .*V % *> 1 

': %■& • • jSfa - %,*1 

* ^ ''V '-llilf*“ v^%. vfjfP.* a’^.j 

** V**7?^?* <% * •-^■' -* 

o °JL. * _ O. t • 1 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

° A V * XTa Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

<>- t *p *■ ~ 



'o V 


V * 


Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

PreservationTecf 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 


r / >> 0 T^ -j^J PreservationTechnologies 


°* c\ a0 v ,»:^\ 


*!• ^ A*k 


A 


111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 












WS W 7 \W,« 

A* **L c° ° 0 *• L J/* 




O J 

•* 0 / : 



_ > >°"V , 

o * " C /JM' < *'\* 0 x *. * 

0 * *•-'• a° V **.. 
«. ♦ *' .'iv*. ^ .4p\.ix/. *> 

*<? 'mnml • 

[gYjPV INlfer • a v ^ »WW* t $i/* 

** <o* 





•** -°'' %/-*w ,*• 

.j .’.m *vs^* V t c >■ 

o > . £ ii»r££c /a\ - v. Q> 0 




. o. 


* «> 


• ' . vj v" w * -w - «,- <rv * - , 

n* ... , * * 0 \* ^ * • - ’ • 

<Vsl!l>i*. ^ V • ’*•» C\. 



• « «V*'* 

• ♦♦ % •> 


• % *? • 


t*5 j t . V 

, v yr -.'e"»»V ^ V, ^ % 

a\ A , <*'"•* * A° ^ ‘'TV’*’ <\ 

^ . * 0° °o ,** . * ‘ " 

:£m^;- .\ 










- c^y- ♦ 0 X -» V- 

.V °* •...•* A° V '♦.. 

' %y : &^h° \<? • ' 0 &’ *+ ♦♦ 

. * ; \. ** v % °J 8 t ; y \ 

* - -. ♦o'—> .....*<► '”“•/ ... 

c .rfS'fts-*. °o > ,vW. A c° •• - * 

* ^v*’ ++# • 

; j° v 

°o 'T^^S O 0 "V %' 

A 0 <5> * 

•- <=\ a0 V »!V% V' • 

** *» * y s}** * 

: - 





fa* % A* . 



4? ^ Oj 

• * A <> 

' A * 

DOBBS BROS. ^ 




% ^A 

+ &p v 0a • 



^ LIBRARY BINDING , 

•* ' ._ ^ .4 , -• (V 


:oct 81 : 





^ ST. AUGUSTINE ’ ^ ~ ”^0WJS’,' »' .' 

' — FLA. ^ °o ‘-Tf:-’ / *j 

. * * O r~\ n v a * • » v^-v 

32084 •*«*'• ^ * 9 sit*i:»*+ 








